Suresh Kumar Kait, J.

Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby quashing detention order dated 08-08-2016 passed by respondent No. 2, as confirmed by respondent No. 1 on 27-09-2016, and consequently, direct respondent No. 3 to forthwith release Hussain Bhai @ Hasan Bhai @ Badrul Hasan @ Delhi Gaddam Saheb @ Pappu (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu').

2. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu, in support of the petition, it is stated that on 08-08-2016, respondent No. 2 vide Ref.C1/533/M/2016 passed an order of detention against the detenu under Sections 3 (1) and 3 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act').

3. Sri L. Ravichander, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the detention order suffers from several legal infirmities and it is liable to be set aside. He submits that in the grounds of detention served on the detenu referred seven cases while passing the order of detention by the detaining authority. Reading of grounds of detention and perusal of documents relied upon by the detaining authority would make it clear that the order of detention was passed mechanically without application of mind on vague, irrelevant and non-existing grounds and there is no material placed for subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority which has curtailed the fundamental rights of the detenu by placing him under preventive detention. The detaining authority arrived at a subjective satisfaction basing upon the seven crimes registered against the detenu on the ground that his activities are disturbing public peace and law and order problem as well. It is not in dispute that the detaining authority can invoke the provisions of the preventive detention to pass the order against the detenu if and only if the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. However, Law and order problem cannot be taken care under the preventive law. The detaining authority traveled beyond the scope of the Act and passed the detention order referring to the material which cannot form part of the detention order under the Act.

4. In addition to the above, so many other grounds are raised in this Writ Petition. However, learned senior counsel has strongly argued that the mother tongue of the detenu is Hindi. He is not conversant with English and Telugu languages. He can only read and write in Hindi and sign in Hindi. The material papers served to the detenu show that the order of detention and the grounds of detention are served in English, Telugu and Hindi languages. Moreover, all the material papers relied upon supplied are in English and Telugu, however, not supplied in Hindi language. Learned senior counsel submits that there are number of mistakes in the detention order issued in Hindi when compared to the detention order in English language and they are not translated properly. The supporting material supplied along with grounds of detention are in English language and some of them are in Telugu language. The detenu is, accordingly, deprived of making effective representation against the detention order. Thus, the order of detention is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

5. The present petition was listed before this Court on 01-02-2017 for hearing. Learned counsel for the respondents sought time to take instructions whether, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the documents are supplied in Hindi, known language of the detenu. Learned counsel submits that the detenu is fully conversant with English and Telugu. He married with a Telugu lady, that is why he can read and write Telugu. Thus, all the documents supplied are either in Hindi, English or Telugu.

6. This Court put a specific query to learned counsel for the respondents that if this is the position,