C. Praveen Kumar, J.

1. This writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings dt. 25-6-2012 issued by the District Collector and Magistrate, Chittoor ordering the detention of the petitioner under section 3(1) r/w 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to “the Act 1/1986) and consequential order of the first respondent, Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Chief Secretary, in approving the order of detention passed by the District Collector, Chittoor in G.O.R.t.No.3098, General Administration (Law & Order. II) Department dt. 6-7-2012 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14,21 and 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

2. By his proceedings dt. 25-6-2012, the second respondent passed an order of detention under Section 3(1) r/w 3(2) of the Act 1/1986 on the ground that the petitioner is a ‘goonda’ within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act 1 of 1986 and with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

3. The third respondent, Divisional Forest Officer, Wild Life Management Division, Tirupati, Chitoor District, has submitted proposals to the second respondent reporting that a spate of illicit red sanders felling and smuggling to Chennai and other unknown destinations had occurred in various Reserved Forest Areas of Wildlife Management Division, Tirupati in the last seven years. The petitioner was identified as one of the king pins who was responsible for financing the process of felling trees and also smuggling the same to other places. About 11 cases were registered against the petitioner for various offences under the Forest Act and also under the Indian Penal Code.

4. The order of detention, which is under challenge in the present writ petition discloses 11 cases being registered against the petitioner from the year 2006 onwards for the offences punishable under the Forest Act and also for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The order of detention further discloses that the petitioner has committed various offences by entering into Government Reserved Forest without proper authorisation, severing standing red sander trees from the earth, dressing the same in secret hideouts and trying to smuggle the highly valuable red sanders wood to secret destinations. The gist of 11 cases which are referred to in the order of detention are as under:

It is apt to mention here that in all the cases, the petitioner is shown as accused and the cases were registered against him for the offences under the Forest Act and also under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. It is also necessary to mention here that earlier an order of detention was passed on 11-8-2006 against the petitioner. About 5½ years later, he was arrested and after his arrest, grounds of detention were furnished to him. The said order was challenged before this Honourable Court by way of WP No.3856/2012.This Honourable Court by its order dt. 28-3-2012 allowed the writ petition holding that the authorities who are responsible for execution of the order of detention cannot escape their liability by making an allegation that the detenu was absconding. They have to take steps under Section 7 of the Act 1 of 1986 to declare the detenu as proclaimed offender and attach his properties for securing his arrest and also explain the delay in executing the order of detention. As no explanation was forthcoming from the detaining authority explaining the delay in executing the order of detention and as no steps have been taken as provided under Section 7 of the Act 1 of 1986 to secure the arrest of detenu by declaring him as a proclaimed offender, this Court was pleased to set-aside the order of detention. The Court opined that the matter has to be enquired