Preventive detention orders must adhere to procedural safeguards, including the disclosure of all relevant information to the detaining authority to ensure the legality of the detention.

The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Harinath.N)

The writ petition is filed challenging the order of detention vide Rc.No.MC1/3080/2023, dated 10.11.2023 issued by the 1st respondent.

2. The petitioner is the wife of detenu who was detained vide order of detention dated 10.11.2023. The 2nd respondent confirmed the detention order and issued G.O.Rt.No.2261 General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 17.11.2023. The detenu was involved in the following 03 cases.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sponsoring authority has suppressed the vital information to the detaining authority. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner was released on bail in all cases and that the bail orders were not furnished to the 1st respondent.

4. It is also the contention of the petitioner that not forwarding the bail orders to the 1st respondent has eclipsed the 1st respondent from considering the facts and circumstances for grant of bail. It is also submitted that there is a possibility for the respondents to take a different view had the detaining authority furnished all information without suppressing the relevant material.

5. There are no grounds for branding the detenu under the definition of bootlegger as defined under Section 2 (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (herein after be referred as ‘the Act’).

6. The State in their counter has narrated the details of all cases which were registered against the detenu. It is also submitted that the detenu was involved in three cases during the years 2022 and 2023 and all those cases are related to AP Prohibition Act. The detenu was indulging in possession, sale and transportation of illicit distilled liquor in contravention of the AP Prohibition (Amendment Act), 2020. It is also submitted that, the procedure established under law was followed for passing the order of detention and ample opportunity was granted to the detenu to make a representation to the concerned authority and that the detenu was also given an opportunity of personal hearing. It is submitted that the illegal activities of the detenu are affecting the public health and public order and that the detenu resorting to bootlegging activities without any remotes have resulted in passing the order of detention. The only option left with the law enforcing agencies is to detain him by issuing the detention order, which is completely in accordance with law.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment of the composite High Court at Hyderabad passed in the matter of Vasanthu Sumalatha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , MANU/AP/0602/2015 wherein, at paragraph 7, it was held as follows ;

“7. The Constitutional imperatives of Article 22(5), and the dual obligation imposed on the authority making the order of preventive detention, are twofold: (1) The detaining authority must, as soon as may be, i.e. as soon as practicable, after the detention order is passed, communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been made, and (2) the detaining authority must afford the detenu