Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. SESHA SAI, DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, JJ.
Manukonda Meri Ratna Kumari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 19083 of 2022
Decided On : 17-11-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 14, 21 - Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act 1995 - Section 3(1) - Traffic Offenders and Land- Grabbers Act, 1986 - Section 3 - offences punishable - empowers all the High Courts of India to issue - Protection of life and liberty and equality before law - Whether Order of detention passed by respondent-Collector and District Magistrate as confirmed by respondent-State Government is sustainable and tenable –Held, Court should never be oblivious of ground reality that provisions of present legislation deal with penal consequences and eventually impact liberty of individuals as such, strict adherence to provisions of law is required to be observed and competent authorities under Act are required to examine issues with lot of care, caution and circumspection - In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to Judgment of Supreme Court in Champion, Supreme Court while dealing with provisions of Preventive detention –Ordered Accordingly.
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri D. Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy, Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.
2. In the present Writ Petition challenge is to the Order of detention, dated 17.03.2022, vide Roc. No. C1/e-1881533/2022, passed by the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate, West Godavari District, under Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Legers, Dacoits, Drug Offenderes, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land- Grabbers Act, 1986 (For short ‘the Act’) as confirmed by the 1st respondent-State Government vide G.O.Rt. No. 847 General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 10.05.2022.
3. Petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu-Manukonda Anil Kumar. On the ground that the detenu falls under the definition of ‘Goonda” in terms of Section 2(g) of the Act and that the activities of the detenu are dangerous and prejudicial to the maintenance of public order apart from disturbing the peace, tranquility, social harmony/order in the society, the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate passed the impugned Order of detention dated 17.03.2022.
4. The very genesis for initiation of the Proceedings against the detenu is the Registration of seventeen (17) crimes in different police Stations against him. The particulars of the said crimes are as follows:
| S. No. | Crime No. and date | Police Station | Sections |
| 1. | 922/2013, 26.07.2013 | L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad | 454 and 380 IPC |
| 2. | 102/2014, 14.04.2014 | Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry | 454 and 380 IPC |
| 3. | 35/2014, 12.03.2014 | Machilipatnam, Krishna District | 454 and 380 IPC |
| 4. | 195/2014, 09.05.2014 | V Town PS, Nellore | 454 and 380 IPC |
| 5. | 203/2015, 17.09.2015 | Tirupati Town PS | 454 and 380 IPC |
| 6. | 408/2015, 27.11.2015 | Sarpavaram PS E.G. District | 457 and 380 IPC |
| 7. | 136/2016, 03.04.2016 | Tirupati Town PS | 457 and 380 IPC |
| 8. | 120/2016, 15.04.2016 | Sarpavaram PS | 457 and 380 IPC |
| 9. | 20/2017, 16.01.2017 | Bhimavaram II Town PS, WG Dist | 457 and 380 IPC |
| 10. | 54/2020, 08.02.2020 | Alamuru PS, Tadikalapudi, E.G. Dist. | 307, 341 and 392 IPC |
| 11. | 41/2020, 03.03.20202 | Alamuru PS, E.G. Dist. | 307, 341 and 392 IPC |
| 12. | 36/2021, 10.02.2021 | Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry | 392, 457 and 342 IPC |
| 13. | 136/2021, 24.03.2021 | Chintalapudi | 457 and 380 IPC |
| 14. | 282/2021, 24.08.2021 | Gudivada I Town PS | 379 IPC |
| 15. | 387/2021, 28.08.2021 | Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry | 457 and 380 IPC |
| 16. | 332/2021, 31.08.2021 | Amalapuram | 454 and 380 IPC |
| 17. | 558/2021, 03.10.2021 | Saroornagar PS, Hyderabad | 457 and 380 read with Section 511 IPC |
5. Vide G.O.Rt. No. 524 General Administration (SC-1) Department, dated 24.03.2022, the 1st respondent-State of Andhra Pradesh, passed the Orders of approval and referred the matter to the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board submitted report on 28.04.2022 and the 1st respondent eventually confirmed the Order of detention vide G.O.Rt. No. 847 General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 10.05.2022 and ordered continuation of detention for twelve months from the date of detention i.e. 20.03.2022. Assailing the validity and legal sustainability of the said Order of detention, and the Order of confirmation passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents respectively, the present Writ Petition came to be instituted.
6. Counter affidavit, deposed by the Collector and District Magistrate-2nd respondent is filed, denying the allegations and averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and in the direction of justifying the impugned action.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the pet
Preventive detention must adhere to procedural safeguards and be based on relevant grounds to ensure the protection of fundamental rights.
Preventive detention must link past conduct to an imminent threat; reliance on outdated or incorrect data violates legal principles.
Detention orders must be based on relevant grounds and adhere to procedural safeguards to ensure legality and protect fundamental rights.
The satisfaction of the authorities under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and Land Grab....
Preventive detention orders must follow statutory compliance and aim to prevent future offenses, not punish past actions.
Preventive detention orders must consider all relevant material, including granted bail orders; failure to do so renders the detention invalid.
Preventive detention – Unless offences alleged to have been committed by detune are punishable under provisions of Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of IPC, he would not fit into definition....
The validity of a preventive detention order hinges on the detaining authority's access to all relevant materials, and omissions can invalidate the order.
Detention orders must be based on adequate factual supports and clear legal justifications, ensuring compliance with procedural standards and the right to a fair hearing.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
