Irrelevant grounds in a detention order vitiate the entire order.

JUDGMENT

C. Praveen Kumar, J. - This petition, in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus, was filed by the wife of the detenu, viz., Nukala Manohar Rao, son of N.Krishna Murthy, who is lodged in Central Prison, Kadapa, praying for release and to set him free, after declaring his detention under Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act'), as unconstitutional and illegal.

2. By an order dated 07.08.2020, the Collector & District Magistrate, Kurnool, passed the order of detention under Section 3(2) read with Section 3 (1) of Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goonda, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, on the ground that he is a bootlegger within the meaning of the Act and that he is constantly involved in bootlegging activities in Allagadda and Ahobilam Areas of Kurnool District City and became dangerous to the lonely public in purview of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. The said order of detention was accorded approval by the 1st Respondent vide G.O.Rt. No.1517, on 01.10.2020, confirming the detention of the detenu for a period of 12 months from the date of his detention i.e., 09.08.2020, pursuant to the review and report, dated 18.09.2020, submitted by the Advisory Board.

3. The grounds of detention served on the detenu refer to 14 incidents. Out of 14 incidents referred to in the grounds, except incident Nos.11, 12 & 14, which were registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 273 I.P.C., Section 20(2) of the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and Sections 26, 30 of Food Safety and Standard Act of Koilakuntla P.S.; Sections 188, 273 I.P.C., Section 20(b) of NDPS Act 1985 and Section 20(2) of COTP Act of Koilakuntla P.S.; and Sections 188, 273, 328 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 20(2) of the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and Sections 26, 30 of Food Safety and Standard Act of Koilakuntla P.S. respectively, all other cases were registered against the detenu, for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 273, 328 I.P.C. and the provisions of Food Safety and Standard Act 2006.

4. Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, mainly submits that the order of detention came to be passed on vague and irrelevant grounds. He took us through the counter-affidavit filed by the Collector & District Magistrate and the material filed along with the counter to show that though initially the detenu was detained as a bootlegger, but subsequently it was altered and detained on the ground that he is a Drug offender, which according to him, is sufficient to set aside the order of detention. He further submits that though Crime No.17 of 2018 registred against the detenu was quashed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.6134 of 2019 on 16.10.2019 itself, but the said fact was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority.

5. Per contra, Sri Yugandhar Reddy, representing the office of Additional Advocate General No.1, opposed the same. He submits that having regard to the fact that the detenu is involved in 14 crimes, which are similar nature, the action of the authorities in detaining him warrants no interference. In other words, he submits that since he is a habitual offender, the authorities were justified in passing the order of detention.

6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is to be noted that in paragraph No.2 of the initial order of detention dated 07.08.2020 it has been mentioned as under :

"WHEREAS, I am satisfied on the basis of the material placed before me that the said person is constantly indulging in boot-legging activities in Allagadda and Ahobilam Areas of Kurnool District City and committing offences and became dangerous to the lonely public in purview of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995."

7. Subsequently, along with the counter-affidavit filed by the Coll