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 Grabbers Act, 1986 must be based on cogent and convincing material and not on stale and sterile reasons.

JUDGMENT

A.V.SESHA SAI,J. - Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order of detention passed by the District Collector and the District Magistrate, Anantapur District-2nd respondent herein, vide proceedings Rc.No.MC1/5424/2021, dtd. 12/12/2021, under Sec. 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'), as confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.168, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dtd. 1/2/2022, under Sec. 12(1) read with Sec. 13 of the Act.

2. The very basis for the respondents for initiating the action under provisions of the Act is registration of five crimes against the petitioner's son. The particulars of the said crimes are as follows:

"i) Cr.No.272 of 2020, on the file of the Peddavaduguru Police Station.

ii) Cr.No.303 of 2020, on the file of the Peddavaduguru Police Station.

iii) Cr.No.360 of 2021, on the file of the Gooty Police Station.

iv) Cr.No.209 of 2021, on the file of the Peddavaduguru Police Station.

v) Cr.No.285 of 2021, on the file of the Peddavaduguru Police Station."

3. The above crimes came to be registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sec. 7(a) r/w Sec. 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Except in Crime No.360 of 2021, on the file of the Gooty Police Station, charge sheets have been filed in the rest of the crimes. It is also pertinent to note that, in all the above five crimes, the detenu is on bail. On the basis of the recommendations of the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram District, dtd. 30/11/2021, by treating the petitioner's son/detenu as a Boot Legger under provisions of Sec. 2(b) of the Act, the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate, passed an order of detention and subsequently, the State Government, after referring the same to the Advisory Board and after submission of report by the said Board, passed an order vide G.O.Rt.No.168, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dtd. 1/2/2022, confirming the order of detention, while observing that the order of detention shall continue for a period of 12 months from date of detention i.e., 16/12/2021.

4. In the above background, the present Writ Petition came to be instituted by the father of the detenu.

5. Resisting the Writ Petition, counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent-Collector and the District Magistrate, denying the allegations and the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and in the direction of justifying the action impugned in the Writ Petition.

6. Heard Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General, for the State, for the respondents.

7. Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while vehemently attacking the order of detention, contends that the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent-Collector and the District Magistrate, as confirmed by the State Government, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, besides being opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Act. In elaboration, it is further contended by the learned counsel that, in all crimes registered against the petitioner's son, he is on bail and he is strictly adhering to the conditions of bail; that the police registered all the crimes against the petitioner only on extra judicial confession of the detenu and, in the absence of any other incriminating material/evidence, the respondent authorities are not justified in invoking the provisions of the Act. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that there is absolutely no evidence/material available on record to show that the activities of the alleged detenu are causing impact on the public order. It is further maintained by the learned counsel that, in absence of any finding that