IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 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 : 14610 of 2008 Between: Bharavathu Nagaraju, S/o. Nanya, R/o. Jalagam Nagar, Sathupalli, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector & District Magistrate, Khammam District. 2 The Chief Secretary, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent, Central Prison, Warangal. .....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 to issue a writ order or direction more one in the nature of Writ of Habeas corpus Unde Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to produce sri Boddu Rama Krishna, now detained in Central Prison, Warangal, before this Hon'ble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his destention is illegal and void and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SMTA.GAYATRI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.14610 of 2008 Order:- (per K.C.Bhanu, J.) Heard Smt. A.Gayathri Reddy, learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the oﬃce of the Advocate General for respondents 1 to 3. 2. This writ petition is ﬁled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to produce one Boddu Rama Krishna, who was detained in Central Prison, Warangal, before this Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention as illegal and void. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: It is alleged by the cousin-brother of the detenu that the detenu, by name Boddu Rama Krishna, is now lodged in Central Jail, Warangal, that the order of detention, dated 08- 5-2008, was passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Khammam, under Sections 3(2) and 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Oﬀenders, Goondas, Immoral Traﬃc Oﬀenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act, 1986’) on the ground that the detenu was a bootlegger within the meaning of the Act, 1986 and with a view to prevent him from action in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order. In the grounds of detention, six incidents have been referred to, relating to – (i) Crime No.743/2006-07, dated 05-01-2007, of Prohibition Excise Station, Sathupally for possession and transportation of 10 litres of illicitly distilled liquor; (ii) Crime No.831/2006-07, dated 06-02-2007, of Prohibition Excise Station, Sathupally for possession and transportation of 30 litres of illicitly distilled liquor; (iii) Crime No.992/2006-07, dated 25-3-2007, of Prohibition Excise Station, Sathupally for possession and transportation of 50 litres of illicitly distilled liquor; (iv) Crime No.122/2007-08, dated 10-5-2007, of Prohibition Excise Station, Sathupally for possession and transportation of 60 litres of illicitly distilled liquor; (v) Crime No.518/2007-08, dated 13-9-2007, of Prohibition Excise Station, Sathupally for possession and transportation of 20 litres of illicitly distilled liquor; (vi) Crime No.34/2008-09, dated 11-4-2008, of Prohibition Excise Station, Sathupally for possession and transportation of 20 litres of illicitly distilled liquor; It is further stated that the order of detention was passed in mechanical manner on vague, irrelevant and non- existing grounds. Therefore, the order of detention is liable to be quashed. It is further stated that the report of the Analyst does not give any indication how much sediment was found and whether that quantity is such to be used was suﬃcient for injurious to health, that there was no subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, that there was no allegation that any consumer, who purchased arrack from the detenu, was suﬀered any ill-health and that the detenu was not doing the business on large scale in a clandestine manner and small quantity of liquor was recovered from him in all occasions and hence, he prays to set aside the detention order. 4. The learned Counsel for petitioner contended that the cases detected on diﬀerent dates could not be said to show the activities would cause wide-spread danger to public health, that there was absolutely no allegation that any consumer, who purchased arrack from the detenu, had suﬀered ill-health, that there is no proximity of time of detention from one case to another case and the detaining authority has not applied its mind for the material relied upon by it and that therefore, she prays to direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and for his enlargement after declaring his detention as illegal and void. 5. However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the oﬃce of the Advocate General stated that all the material facts have been placed before the detaining authority, that the detenu was involved in six crimes, whereunder on each occasion he was found in possession of the illicitly distilled liquor, which is injurious to human consumption and that there are no grounds to interfere with the detention order passed by the detaining authority. 6. Basing upon the material available on record, the detaining authority has taken the following cases as grounds for detaining the detenu :- As seen from the material available on record, the detenu was found in possession of 10 litres of illicitly distilled liquor on 05-01-2007, which is the subject matter of Crime No.743/2006-07; in second case, he was found in possession of 30 litres of illicitly distilled liquor on 06-02-2007 in Crime No.831/2006-07; in third case, he was found in possession of 50 litres of illicitly distilled liquor on 25-3-2007 in Crime No.992/2006-07; in fourth case, he was found in possession of 60 litres of illicitly distilled liquor on 10-5-2007 in Crime No.122/2007-08; in ﬁfth case, he was found in possession of 20 litres of illicitly distilled liquor on 13-9-2007 in Crime No.518/2007-08; and in sixth case, he was found in possession of 20 litres of illicitly distilled liquor on 11-4-2008 in Crime No.34/2008-09. 7. On each occasion, the sample of illicitly distilled liquor was drawn by the concerned Police and the same was forwarded to the Analyst. The Analyst, after analysis, opined that each sample contained illicitly distilled liquor containing sediment, which is injurious to health and unﬁt for human consumption. Therefore, in spite of launching of prosecution of cases against the detenu, in the aforementioned crimes, failed to have any desired impact on the clandestine operation of boot-legging activities of the detenu, and to check the further activities, the impugned order was passed. It is not a case of non-supply of any material documents because admittedly all the documents relied upon by the detaining authority had been supplied to the detenu. 8. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for petitioner is that there was no proximity of time with one case to another case. 9. As seen from the crimes registered against the detenu, those crimes were registered within a span of nine months and the last crime was registered on 11-4-2008, which is the close proximity in time with the detention order. On each of the occasion, the detenu was found to be carrying illicitly distilled liquor. No doubt, there is no material ﬁled to show that this illicitly distilled liquor, as sold by the detenu, had been consumed by the consumers and it had given a wide-spread danger to the public. It is not the case of the detenu that he was carrying the same for his personal consumption. On each occasion, he was found suﬃciently huge quantity of illicitly distilled liquor and therefore, it can safely be inferred that the quantity, which was found in possession of the detenu on each occasion, was being transported for sale to the general public. Considering the fact that the illicitly distilled liquor contained sediment and injurious to health and unﬁt for human consumption, the acts of the detenu would certainly affect the public order. 10. The last crime was detected on 11-4-2008 and the crime preceding that incident was registered on 13-9-2007. There was gap of ﬁve months between the two crimes registered. The impugned order is passed on 08-5-2008, that means within one month from the date of detection of last crime. Therefore, it cannot be held that there was no proximity of time between the last crime registered to the date of detention order. Necessarily, the detaining authority has to wait for receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner. Considering all these facts, the detaining authority has passed the impugned order because the existing laws failed to curb the legal activities, which necessitated the detaining authority to pass the detention order. By consuming the illicitly distilled liquor, there would be impact on the general public and there is likelihood of wide-spread danger to the public, thereby adversely affect the public order. 11. Therefore, the detention order under challenge is not suﬀered from any inﬁrmities so as to call for interference by this Court. 12. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 10th September, 2008. Ak ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}