APHC010016302026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3558]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 1459/2026 Between:

1. M OONA NAGUR KHAJA, S/O. ADHAM SAHEB, AGED ABOUT

62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O KODURU MAIN, KODURU -1, THOTAPALLI GUDURU, NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH - 524 002.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (EXCISE) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 503.

2. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 503.

3. T HE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT. 524001

4. T HE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PALLIPADU DIBBA, PIDATHAPOLURU CROSS ROAD, GENCO ROAD, MUTHUKUR MANDAL, SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT. 524314.

5. T HE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, KADAPA.

516002.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. VENKAT CHALASANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.1459 of 2026 O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy Challenging the legal validity of the order of preventive detention dated 26.12.2025 passed by the detaining authority against a person by name Moona @ Muna Saddam Hussain, which, in turn, was confirmed by the State as per G.O.Rt.No.264, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 09.02.2026, the instant writ petition has been filed by the father of the detenu.

2. Heard Mr. K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Chalasani Venkat, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is the father of a person by name Moona @ Muna Saddam Hussain (hereinafter referred to as „detenu‟). Three crimes were registered against the detenu for the offences punishable under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Two crimes were registered in T.P. Gudur Police Station and one crime was registered in Muthukur Police Station. Considering the fact that the detenu has been repeatedly indulging in commission of the said offences and alleging that his acts are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the sponsoring authority has made a request to the District Collector, who is the detaining authority, to pass an order of preventive detention against the detenu. The detaining authority has considered the material placed before him, including the orders of bail granted to the detenu, and he found that the detenu has been repeatedly committing the said offences even after grant of bail to him and his acts are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the detaining authority was of the opinion that an order of preventive detention is required to be passed against him. Accordingly, he has passed the impugned order of preventive detention against the detenu. The said order was considered and confirmed by the State as per G.O.Rt.No.264 dated

09.02.2026.

4. The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu, has now challenged the said order of preventive detention on the ground that the detaining authority has not given any reasons as to how the acts of the detenu are found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the impugned order has been mechanically passed ordering for his preventive detention, which has the effect of curtailing his personal liberty. Therefore, he has prayed to set aside the impugned order and to set the detenu at liberty.

5. The 4^th respondent - sponsoring authority has filed his counter denying the allegations made in the writ petition. It is pleade