IMPORTANT POINT
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 of “Goonda”.

ORDER

Kiranmayee Mandava, J.—This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Habeas Corpus by declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, in detaining Shaik Khaja @ Kaalu, S/o. Shaik Mohammad Rafi, vide order dated 25.08.2023 in RC. No.MC1/2446/2023, as confirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt.No.2115 General Administration (Spl. (Law and Order)), Department, dated 30.10.2023, as illegal and unconstitutional.

2. The writ petitioner is brother of the detenue, Sri Shaik Khaja @ Kaalu, S/o. Shaik Mohammad Rafi. The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 25.08.2023, passed an order of detention under Sec 3(1) & (2) read with Sec.2(f) of the A.P Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers and Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, (Act No.1 of 1986), placing the detenue under detention in Central Prison, Kadapa. The said order of detention was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.2115 dated 30.10.2023, treating the detenue as “Goonda” as defined under Sec.2(g) of the A.P. Prevention of Bootleggers and Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. The following are the cases, which have been taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent, while placing the detenue under detention:—

3. The petitioner contends that out of ten (10) cases registered against him, in eight (8) cases, the detenue was issued with notice under Sec.41-A of Cr.P.C. In one (1) case, the detenue was yet to be arrested. The detaining authority did not take into consideration the said fact while arriving at the satisfaction. Out of the said ten (10) cases, four (4) cases were ended in compromise before Lok Adalat. The Awards passed by the Lok Adalat in the said cases were also not furnished to the detenue enabling him to submit his representation. He further contends that the detaining authority while passing the order of detention has taken into consideration certain stale cases, which lacks live link with the remaining crimes which were registered against the detenue, before passing of the present impugned order of detention. It is his further submission that one of the offence alleged to have been committed would not fall under the definition of „Goonda as defined U/s. Sec.2(g) of the A.P Prevention of Bootleggers and Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

4. The 2nd respondent filed his counter affidavit, stating that the detenue is habitual offender and his committing offences affecting the public order involving in murder, extortion, rioting, criminal intimidation, cheating etc. With a view to prevent the detenue from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public order, the order of detention was passed. The quantum of punishment provided under regular law under which the crimes were registered against the detenue, would not be sufficient to deter the criminal activities of the detenue.

5. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D. Purnachandra Reddy, and Sp