IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 8787 of 2008 Between: Sondi Lakshmi, W/o Sondi Yesu, R/o Indira Colony, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector & District Magistrate, Vizianagaram District. 2 The Chief Secretary, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 the Superintendent, Central Jail, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus Under Article 226 of Constitution of India directing the Respondents to produce Sri Sondi Yesu Now detained in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, before this Hon'ble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring that his detention is illegal and void. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, Senior Counsel representing Sri C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents : THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.8787 of 2008 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri C. Praveen Kumar, appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner seeking production of her husband viz., Sri Sondi Yesu, s/o. late Benjimen, aged about 44 years, resident of Indira Colony, Pedarelli veedhi, Parvathipuram Town, Vizianagaram District, who was now detained in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, before this Court, and to release him forthwith. 3. The facts, in brief, are as under: The husband of the petitioner was allegedly involved in trafficking of illicit liquor in and around Parvathipuram Town, Vizianagaram District. Taking into account of his frequent involvement in the said activity, the competent authority i.e., the Collector and District Magistrate, Vizianagaram District, the first respondent herein, exercising the jurisdiction conferred under Section 3 (1)(2), read with Section 2 (a) & (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas and Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for brevity “the Act”), initially passed an order, dated 11-03-2008, in proceedings Rc.No.329/2007/A5/Exc., for the detention of the husband of the petitioner for a period of one month. Consequently, the husband of the petitioner was taken into custody on 12-03-2008. Since the initial order, dated 11-03-2008 was required to be clarified, the modified order, dated 14-03-2008, was issued by the first respondent and the same was forwarded to the Government for approval. The Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the Act, reviewed the case of the husband of the petitioner on 08-04-2008 and eventually the Government had passed the final order vide G.O.Rt.No.2206, General Administration (Law & Order.II) Department, dated 11-04-2008, confirming the order passed by the competent authority, and as a result of which the husband of the petitioner was directed to be detained for a period of 12 (twelve) months from the date of his detention i.e., 12-03-2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking production of her husband and to release him forthwith. 4. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy appearing for the petitioner that the competent authority had set out six grounds for passing the order of detention and the material placed on record for passing the said order was incorrect and, as such, it is to be held that the order of detention was passed without application of mind. Therefore, he prays to release the husband of the petitioner after setting aside the order of detention passed by the first respondent and all other consequential orders. 5. Admittedly, the competent authority i.e., the Collector and District Magistrate, Vizianagaram District, had cited four instances for passing the order of detention, which, in brief, are as under. (1) On 14-11-2005 the husband of the petitioner along with others was found to be transporting I.D. liquor, for which a case in Crime No.237/05-06 was registered and the Calendar Case number is yet to be assigned. (2) On 16-01-2006, again the husband of the petitioner was found to be involved in the same kind of offence, for which a case in Crime No.303/05-06 was registered and the Calendar Case number is yet to be assigned. (3) On 14-07-2006, again the husband of the petitioner was found to be involved in the same kind of offence, for which a case in Crime No.115/06-07 was registered and the same is under trial. (4) On 14-07-2007, again the husband of the petitioner was found to be involved in the same kind of offence, for which a case in Crime No.180/07-08 was registered and the Calendar Case number is yet to be assigned. 6. From the above, it could be seen that all the above offences pointed out by the competent authority are related with the trafficking of illicit liquor. Therefore, if these facts are found to be correct or the competent authority was informed correctly and found to have been satisfied with the material made available to him, he can exercise the jurisdiction conferred under Section 3 (1) and (2) of the Act. 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that so far as incident Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, it was specifically mentioned by the competent authority that the charge sheets were filed and the cases were pending against the husband of the petitioner. But, as a matter of fact, in the above two incidents, the husband of the petitioner was tried vide C.C.Nos.311 and 318 of 2007, and after trial in the above two cases, the husband of the petitioner was acquitted, by order, dated 23-01- 2008. 8. Obviously, these facts were neither brought to the notice of the competent authority nor there was an opportunity for the competent authority to consider the said facts and, therefore, we are of the considered view that the true and relevant material facts regarding the above two cases mentioned in the order of detention were not placed before the competent authority and the competent authority had passed the order of detention as a matter of routine, which, otherwise, can be called as the order passed without application of mind. 9. In our view, the orders of acquittal passed against the husband of the petitioner are vital information and such important information was suppressed and wrong information has been furnished to the competent authority, which, in fact, induced him to pass the order of detention against the husband of the petitioner. 10. It is to be further noticed that the competent authority is given free hand to pass orders, exercising the jurisdiction under Section 3 (1) and (2) of the Act. There is any amount of scope for abuse of law while exercising the said jurisdiction. Therefore, certain safeguards have got to be provided. To some extent, Section 8 of the Act, which deals with the procedure, metes such contingency of abuse. But, the same is not exhaustive and the Court has to necessarily look into various other aspects and satisfy itself as to whether the order of detention was passed properly after application of mind or not. 11. In this context, it is apposite to extract Section 8 of the Act, which is as under: “8. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to persons affected by the order:-- (1) When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but, not later than five days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the Government. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the authority to disclose facts which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose.” 12. In the instant case, except the order of detention and the grounds thereof, no other material has been furnished to the husband of the petitioner, as contemplated under Section 8 of the Act. This is yet another important ground, which this Court has to necessarily look into and interfere in the matter. 13. Exfacie, the procedure envisaged under Section 8 of the Act was not followed, apart from suppression of material facts, which are very much in favour of the husband of the petitioner. 14. In this context, it is to be seen that in ICCHU DEVI v. UNION OF INDIA[1], the apex Court held as under: “………the detaining authority was bound to supply copies of the documents, statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention to the detenu within five days from the date of detention, that is, on or before 9th June, 1980 and in any event, even if there were exceptional circumstances and reasons for not supplying such copies within five days were recorded in writing, such copies should have been supplied to the detenu not later than fifteen days from the date of detention, that is, on or before 19th June, 1980………” 15. In the above circumstances of suppression of material facts, which is otherwise called as non-revelation of vital information to the competent authority, apart from violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the Act, the orders of detention passed against the husband of the petitioner are liable to the set aside. 16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, at the stage of admission, setting aside the detention order, dated 11-03-2008, and the modified order, dated 14-03-2008, in proceedings Rc.No.329/2007/A5/Exc, both passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Vizianagaram District, and all other consequential proceedings passed against the husband of the petitioner, viz., Sri Sondi Yesu, s/o. late Benjamen, aged 44 years, resident of Indira Colony, Pedarelli veedhi, Parvathipuram Town, Vizianagaram District, under Section 3 (1)(2), read with Section 2 (a) & (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas and Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, and the husband of the petitioner shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 11-06-2008. Msr. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Collector & District Magistrate, Vizianagaram District. 2 The Chief Secretary, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad 3 The Superintendent, Central Jail, Visakhapatnam. 4. Two CCs to Advocate General, Government of Andhra Pradesh, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. 5. Two C.D. copies. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.8787 of 2008 11-06-2008 (Msr) [1] AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 1983