THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10309 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao) This writ petition is instituted by the wife of a detenu against whom the first respondent-Collector and District Magistrate, Karimnagar, has passed an order of preventive detention on 28.03.2009. The Collector and District Magistrate in exercise of the power available to him in Sub-section (2) of Section 3 read with sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short henceforth referred to as “Act 1 of 1986”) ordered for detention of Sri Asari Muthaiah, the husband of the writ petitioner, at the central prison, Warangal. In the impugned order, the Collector has based his satisfaction for detaining the husband of the writ petitioner for the following two grounds: - (1) C.O.R.No.381/2008-09, Dated:22.12.2008 of Prohibition and Excise Station: Sircilla under Section 7 (A) read with 8 (e) of A.P. Proh.& Excise Act, 1995, In this case, Asari Muthaiah, S/o Komraiah, aged about 40 years, Caste: Yadav, Resident of B.Y.Nagar, Sircilla of Karimnagar District was arrested by the Proh.& Excise officials Special Squad and the staff of SHO of Sircilla at the outskirts of Sircilla town, between Peddur to Sircilla road while transporting (54) liters of ID Liquor along with Scooter (without number) on 22.12.2008 and later he was released on bail on 23.12.2008. In this case the chemical analysis report revealed that the contraband seized from him is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Charge sheet was filed and case is under trial in C.C.Number 154/09. (2) C.O.R.No.389/2008-09, Dated: 02.01.2009 of Proh. & Excise Station: Sircilla under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act, 1995. In this case, Asari Muthaiah, S/o Komraiah, aged about 40 years, Caste: Yadav, Resident of B.Y.Nagar, Sircilla of Karimnagar District, was already arrested by the Proh. & Excise officials of Special Squad and the staff of SHO Sircilla at outskirts of Bonala village while transporting/possession (90) liters of ID Liquor along with scooter (without number) on 02.01.2009 and later he was released on bail on 07.01.2009. In this case the chemical analysis report revealed that the contraband seized from him is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Charge sheet was filed and case is under trial in C.C.Number 155/09.” We have heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the learned Advocate General for the respondents. It is contended by Sri A.Prabhakar Rao that the detenu was also ordered to be detained earlier by an order passed on 20th July 2006 by the District Collector, Karimnagar, which was approved by the State Government with their G.O.Rt.No.4037, General Administration (Law and Order) Department, dated 30th July 2006 and also the Advisory Board on 21st August 2006. However, the said preventive detention order was subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.No.19569 of 2006. When this Court considered the legality and validity of the said order by its judgment dated 19th January 2007, it has quashed the said order of detention and setforth the detenu at liberty. But, however, the District Collector, Karimnagar, has committed the same error as was done by him on the previous occasion. Further, the District Collector has taken into account and consideration the same material which was traversed by him on the previous occasion. It was further contended by Sri A.Prabhakar Rao that the District Collector has passed the impugned order based upon assumptions and presumptions, but not based upon any concrete material, inasmuch as he tried to assert the process of distillation said to have been undertaken by the detenu without there being any material in that regard. Learned counsel therefore submits that the impugned order is bad for two fold reasons- (1) that it is vitiated because of consideration of improper material; and (2) that it is vitiated because the Collector has based his satisfaction purely on assumptions and presumptions rather than concrete material warranting exercise of extra-ordinary power in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of Act 1 of 1986. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader would contend that the District Collector has traced the reasons and set them out clearly as to why it was considered by him that the detenu should be ordered for such detention. The District Collector has merely referred to the past case history of the detenu, but he has not based his satisfaction upon such material. Therefore, it is contended that the order of detention passed against the detenu on 28th March 2009, does not call for interference at our hands. Before we consider the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate for us to notice as to how Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of Act 1 of 1986 is worded. It reads as under: - “If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the Government are satisfied that it is necessary so to do, they may, by order in writing, direct that during such period as maybe specified in the order, such District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1) exercise the powers conferred by the said sub-section.” From a perusal of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of Act 1 of 1986, it clearly indicates that if regard is had, towards the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area, which render it necessary to do so, the District Magistrate, if satisfied, may exercise the power for preventively detaining any boot legger, dacoit, drug offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or land grabber. This power is an extra-ordinary power vested by the Statute for achieving the ultimate object of maintaining the public order, as, it is essential that persons who are likely to threaten such a public order or tranquility and act in a manner which is prejudicial to the public order should not be allowed to create such a disturbance. Therefore, keeping these parameters in mind, when we examine the two grounds set out by the District Collector and Magistrate in the impugned order, it becomes clear to us that the detenu was, in fact, arrested by the Prohibition and Excise Squad and the staff of Sircilla Station House Officer while transporting 54 litres of illicitly distilled liquor on a scooter on 22.12.2008. The liquid, which the detenu was transporting on that day, was sent up for chemical analysis. The report of the Chemical Examiner is placed by the learned Advocate General at page 31 of the paper book filed by him. It disclosed that the tests conducted by the Chemical Examiner revealed that the liquid has tested positive for alcohol, acidity and fusel oil. Based upon the results of the analysis, the opinion has been expressed by the Chemical Examiner as follows:- “The samples of Sl.Nos.6248 to 6249 are illicitly distilled liquor containing sediment. They are injurious to health and unfit for human consumption.” The Chemical Examiner’s report makes the position this much clear that the liquid which the detenu was found carrying is not only illegally distilled liquor but also the quality of the product is such that apart from being harmful it is not even fit for human consumption. It is clearly a case where the maintenance of public order is sought to be gravely threatened by the activities carried on by the detenu. The second case, which the Collector and District Magistrate has traced out reveals that the detenu was caught once again while transporting/possessing 90 litres of illicitly distilled liquor on 2nd January 2009. The two instances, which have been relied upon by the District Collector for his satisfaction, are so proximately close inasmuch as one had occasioned on 22nd December 2008 while the second one had occasioned on 2nd January 2009. Thus, the propensity of indulgence in not only manufacturing but also transporting illicitly distilled liquor by the detenu was made out. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Collector and District Magistrate has very rightly recorded his satisfaction that the activities indulged in by the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. However, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner Sri A.Prabhakar Rao strenuously contended that the other reasons set out in the detention order by referring to various materials, which are said to have been used in the process of distillation, are purely imaginary and hence, the Collector and District Magistrate has based the order of detention on assumptions and presumptions rather than any material. We are afraid that this contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner does not carry much of a merit. The reference made by the Collector in the impugned order to the process indulged in illicit distillation is a commonly observed phenomena. The Collector referred to such a process to drive home the point that the crude methods adopted usually for manufacture of illicitly distilled liquor, would cause more intoxication to the consumers, with distrous consequences on their health resulting in diarrhea, gastric irritation, loss of appetite, loss of memory, blurred vision, damage to liver and the nervous system. Therefore, it is a case where the Collector has made a reference to the ill- effects of consumption of the illicitly distilled liquor. He has only pointed out these dangerous aspects, that are likely to be fall if the activities of the detenu are not perforce stopped. To that effect he made the reference to indicate that he has been forced to pass the impugned order in larger public interest and with the objective of maintaining public order. Beyond that, those references do not carry any other significance materially nor was that statement forming the basis upon which the impugned order of detention has been passed. They are merely references towards the ill-effects. The impugned order has been based upon the two instances which were reported against the detenu in quick succession one on 22nd December 2008 and second on 2nd January 2009 when he was caught while transporting illicitly distilled liquor in huge quantities. Therefore, we are satisfied that there is no error committed by the Collector and District Magistrate in passing the preventive detention order in terms of Sub- section (2) of Section 3 read with Section 1 of the Act 1 of 1986. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and is, accordingly, dismissed. But, however, without costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO 20th January, 2010 DR