The activities of a bootlegger must cause harm, danger, alarm, or a feeling of insecurity among the public or pose a grave or widespread danger to life or public health to be considered prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986). The liquor being dangerous to public health is crucial to attract the provisions of the Act.

ORDER :

1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the mother of detenu Bandla. Hari Krishna seeks a direction to set aside the detention order in Proc.No. 64/2023-C1, dated 29.05.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent and confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 1451, dated 24.07.2023 and set the detenu at liberty.

2. The 2nd respondent taking into consideration the following five crimes in which the detenu was allegedly involved, treated him as a bootlegger under Section 2(b) of Act No. 1 of Andhra Pradesh Prevention of dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986) and passed the detention order dated 29.05.2023 and later the 1st respondent passed the confirmation G.O.Rt.No. 1451, dated 24.07.2023 authorizing his detention for one year:

3. The 2nd respondent filed counter on behalf of respondents and opposed the writ petition.

4. Heard argument of Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Special Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General for respondents.

5. Though different grounds were raised to attack the impugned detention order, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that the five offences in which the detenu was allegedly involved can be effectively dealt with by general law i.e., A.P Prohibition and Excise Act and those offences even if taken to be true do not pose any threat to the public order. He would mainly contend that the five offences may at best effect law and order but not public order. He further argued, of the five cases, in three cases i.e., Cr.No. 8/2021, Cr.No. 100/2021 and Cr.No. 106/2021 of Narasaraopet SEB PS, the allegations are to the effect that the detenu and some others were conducting illegal sale of non-duty paid liquor in Andhra Pradesh whereas the contraband seized was intended for sale in Telangana only. He would submit that the sample bottles sent to chemical examiner, Guntur, who opined that the samples are Indian liquor. He would argue that the chemical examiner did not opine the liquor involved in these cases to be unfit for human consumption and cause danger to public life or health. Therefore, those three cases squarely fall within the ambit of violation of general law of Prohibition and Excise rather than Act 1 of 1986. He thus prayed to allow the writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader while supporting the impugned detention order argued that the detenue is a habitual offender involved in stealthily transporting non-duty paid liquor from a neighbouring State of Telangana and selling in Andhra Pradesh and he also involved in manufacturing and selling the I.D. liquor and therefore, he is a habitual bootlegger. He would further argue that though in first three crimes the detenue was charged for transporting and selling the non-duty paid liquor from Telangana, in remaining two cases he was found selling I.D. liquor which is unfit for human consumption and injurious to public health and in extreme cases it may lead to death of the consumer. Thus, taking the totality of the circumstances, which is grave in nature, the Detaining Authority has rightly passed the detentio