Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 52
In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J.
Saroj Mehandi – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary & Others – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 32710 of 2014, 33777, 33338 & 32150 of 2014
Decided on: 02-03-2015
For the Petitioner:D. Prakash Reddy, D. Purnachandra Reddy, T. Niranjan Reddy, T. Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Advocate General (AP).
Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits Drug-Offenders Goondas Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 - Section 2(g) - General Administration (Law and Order) Department - Petitioner herein and seeks a Mandamus to declare detention order - As illegal and unconstitutional and seeks consequential release of detune - Affidavit of petitioner states that by order of respondent detune was detained on ground - Detention order was stated to have been reviewed by Advisory Board - Satisfying itself that there is sufficient cause for detention – Accordingly Government confirmed order of detention and issued aforesaid detaining petitioner for a period of months from date of detention - Order of detention served on detune shows that there are instances from involvement of detune was shown in instances - Affidavit petitioner has narrated manner in which and place from where detune was taken into custody by Task Force Police and it is alleged that detune was later shown to have been involved in various offences while he was away at Myanmar and not in India – Held, Decision of Supreme Court and contended that merely because bails obtained by respective detune in some of cases were not placed before detaining authority would not vitiate subjective satisfaction - However a reading of said decision would show in that particular case detaining authority was aware of orders under which detune was released on bail and merely because bail applications were not placed before detaining authority - It was held not to vitiate subjective satisfaction - In view placing of bail application and bail order before detaining authority are two different and distinct aspects and hence orders granting bail was within knowledge of detaining authority said decision holds that mere bail applications being not before detaining authority would not vitiate detention order - However that would not apply of these cases - Petition allowed (Para 34)
1. Since the issue involved and grounds raised in these writ petitions, being common, the writ petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order.
WP.No.32710 of 2014:
2. The mother of the detenu is the petitioner herein and seeks a Mandamus to declare the detention order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the second respondent, as confirmed by the first respondent under G.O.Rt.No.3405 General Administration (Law and Order) Department dated 10.10.2014 as illegal and unconstitutional and seeks consequential release of the detenu Mr. Vikram Mehandi alias Vikram.
3. The affidavit of the petitioner states that by order of the second respondent the detenu was detained on the ground that he is a goonda within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as the Act 1 of 1986. The detention order was stated to have been reviewed by the Advisory Board on 26.09.2014 satisfying itself that there is sufficient cause for detention. Accordingly, the Government confirmed the order of detention and issued the aforesaid G.O., detaining the petitioner for a period of 12 months from the date of detention i.e. 01.09.2014.
The order of detention served on the detenu shows that there are 20 instances from 02.08.2012 to 14.07.2014 wherein the involvement of the detenu was shown in 10 instances. In para 4 of the affidavit, the petitioner has narrated the manner in which and the place from where the detenu was taken into custody by the Task Force Police and it is alleged that the detenu was later shown to have been involved in various offences while he was away at Myanmar and not in India.
4. Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has contended in support of the writ petition by elaborating the grounds raised in the writ affidavit and inter alia, the principal contentions raised are:
1. The order of detention passed by the second respondent is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Officer, who passed the order, was only an in-charge District Collector in the absence of regular Collector and District Magistrate and as such, under Section 3(2) of the AP Act 1 of 1986 only the officer delegated with power by the State Government viz. the Collector and District Magistrate could have passed the detention order and not by an officer, who is merely holding the post as in-charge.
2. The detention order and the material in support thereof, which was furnished to the detenu was in English and Telugu languages whereas the detenu is conversant only with Hindi language and the in the absence of the translation of the said documents in Hindi language, the detenu has lost a valuable right of making a representation against the detention.
3. Out of the number of cases, referred to in the detention order, the detenu was granted bail in 3 crimes but the said fact was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority and as such, the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority suffers from suppression of relevant facts.
4. The detention order referring to the detenu not mending his ways in spite of so many crimes registered and in spite of charge sheets, being filed in those cases, is clearly an erroneous submission of fact made, as no charge sheets are filed in any of the cases referred to in the detention order.
WP.No.33777 of 2014:
5. The wife of the detenu seeks a Mandamus against the orders of the second respondent dated 27.08.2014 detaining the detenu under the AP Act 1 of 1986. The Advisory Board, which has examined the case of the detenu, also confirmed the detention by order dated 25.09.2014 and thereafter, the first respondent confirmed the order of detention vide G.O.Rt.No.3401 General Administration (Law and Order) Department dated 10.10.2014 detaining the detenu for a period of 12 months from the date of detention i.e. 01.09.2014.
The detention order refers to the
