ORDER :

(U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.)

1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenging the detention of his brother Sri Palthiya Balaji, S/o. Hanuma, under order of detention in Rc.No.C/9/MAG1/2022 dated 02.05.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent – The District Magistrate & Collector, NTR District, Vijayawada under Section 3(1) & 3(2) r/w Section 2(a) & (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (1 of 1986) [for short, ‘the Act 1 of 1986’] and prayed to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.

2. The 3rd respondent has passed the detention order dated 02.05.2022 on the ground that the detenue was involved in committing the offences of possession, sale/distribution of illicitly distilled liquor in contraventions of Section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and also abetting the commission of the said illegal activities and he was involved in following five cases and thus he is a ‘Bootlegger’ within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act 1 of 1986 and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order.

3. The detention order is challenged in this writ petition on the grounds that the cases in which the detenue is involved can be effectively dealt with under the general law and his activities are not prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order; in all the five crimes which were taken as a ground for issuing detention order, the detenue was granted bail even before the date of detention order and the said fact was not taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority while passing the detention order; though more than three months elapsed after the date of detention order, so far the Government neither passed the confirmation order and issued the G.O nor set aside the detention order in terms of Section-12 and hence the detention per se is illegal.

4. The 3rd respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition.

5. Heard arguments of Sri M.P.V.N.V. Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General for respondents.

6. While vehemently opposing the detention order, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri M.P.V.N.V. Sastry, firstly argued that the detention order was passed on 02.05.2022 by the 3rd respondent and though more than three months elapsed after the detention order, so far the Government neither passed the confirmation order and issued the G.O nor set aside the detention order in terms of Section-12 and released the detenue within three months of the detention as mandated under Section 12 of the Act 1 of 1986. Therefore, the detention per se is illegal and liable to be set aside.

(b) He would further argue that in all the five cases the detenue was granted bail even before the detention. It indicates the concerned jurisdictional Court prima facie considered that the detenue was not involved in those cases and accordingly granted bail. Unfortunately, the Detaining Authority has not considered this fact before ordering detention. He thus prayed to allow the writ petition.

7. In oppugnation, supporting the detention order, learned Special Government Pleader would argue that Section-3 of Act 1 of 1986 speaks of [‘satisfaction’ of the Detaining Authority to pass a detention order. When the statute left an action depe