THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.17038 of 2009 Date: 16.09.2009 Between : Kukkala Veerabhadra Rao … Petitioner And The Collector & District Magistrate, Eluru, West Godavari District and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.17038 of 2009 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The petitioner seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus to release his brother, Kukkala Satyanarayana from the Central Prison, Rajahmundry. 2. The petitioner’s brother (for brevity “the detenu”) was subjected to detention under the provisions 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 “Act No.1 of 1986”) on the ground that he is a Bootlegger and his activities were injurious to public health. The order of detention passed by the District Collector, West Godavari District on 26.3.2009 cites three grounds for the preventive detention of the detenu. These grounds relate to the involvement of the detenu in three separate offences under Sections 7(A) and 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. The first offence, relating to Crime No.228/2008-09 of Kovvur Prohibition and Excise Station, took place on 11.9.2008, wherein the detenu along with two other persons was found to be transporting 150 liters of illicitly distilled liquor; the second incident, relating to Crime No.336/2008-09 of Kovvur Prohibition and Excise Station, took place on 7.11.2008, wherein the detenu and another were charged with transporting 100 liters of illicitly distilled liquor; and the third and final incident, which forms the subject matter of Crime No.472/2008-09 of Kovvur Prohibition and Excise Station, took place on 12.1.2009, wherein the detenu along with three other persons was found to be transporting 100 liters of illicitly distilled liquor. In all the three offences, the illicitly distilled liquor seized was found unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. The detenu was granted bail insofar as the first and third offences are concerned and non-bailable warrants are pending insofar as the second offence is concerned. 3. The order of detention passed by the District Collector, West Godavari District, was approved by the Government under the provisions of Section 3 of Act No.1 of 1986 vide G.O.Rt.No.1611, General Administration (Law & Order.II) Department, dated 31.3.2009. Thereafter, the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of Act No.1 of 1986 also found that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. Thereupon, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Rt.No.2099, General Administration (Law & Order.II) Department, dated 5.5.2009, under Sections 12 and 13 of Act No.1 of 1986 confirming the order of detention and directing Kukkala Satyanaraya, the detenu, to be detained for a period of twelve months from the date of his detention i.e., 28.3.2009. 4. Sri C.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, attacks the said detention on the ground that the order of detention does not reflect that the conditions imposed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, while granting bail insofar as the first offence is concerned, were bought to the notice of the detaining authority. He placed reliance upon the material supplied to the detenu, which was taken into account by the detaining authority. 5. The learned counsel pointed out as regards the bail order dated 29.9.2008 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, in Crl.M.P.No.2011 of 2008 in Crime No.228/2008-09 of Kovvur Prohibition and Excise Station, that the first page of the said order bears the signature of the detenu, whereas the second page does not contain his signature. The learned counsel would contend that the conditions imposed by the Court with regard to the appearance of the detenu along with others before the Station House Officer, Kovvur Prohibition and Excise Station twice a week i.e., on every Sunday and Wednesday which are mentioned in the second page were not brought to the notice of the detaining authority. It is his contention that the order of detention would be passed upon the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and the failure to bring the conditions imposed in the bail order to the notice of the detaining authority renders the detention invalid, as the detaining authority may have taken a different view had he been informed of the said conditions. 6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, pointed out that the telugu translation of the bail order in its entirety, which is at page-39 of the material papers placed before us, bears the signature of the detenu, clearly evidencing that the translated telugu copy of the bail order was placed before the detaining authority and was then made available to the detenu. 7. It is relevant to note that the detenu would be in a position to understand the contents of page-39, the telugu translation of the bail order, being the language known to him. In the light of the translated copy of the full and complete bail order bearing the signature of the detenu, the argument of Sri C.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel, that the detaining authority was not made aware of the conditions imposed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail does not hold water. 8. In any event, after the relevant material is placed before the detaining authority, it is not necessary for the said authority to cull out the contents of each and every such material in the order of detention. Once the detaining authority referred to the fact that bail had been granted, it is implicit that the detaining authority was also fully aware of the conditions imposed while granting the bail. It would be hyper-technical to insist that the detaining authority should refer to every aspect of the bail order or any other material placed before him. What is required by law is that an opportunity of effective representation should be afforded to the detenu and all the material considered by the detaining authority is made available to him as per Section 8 of Act No.1 of 1986. Once these two requirements are satisfied, it is not tenable for the detenu to assail the order of detention on hyper-technical grounds. 9. We therefore find no merit in the contention of Sri C.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel, that the detaining authority was not apprised of all the relevant facts. 10. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 16-09-2009 Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.17038 of 2009 16-09-2009 (Msr)