THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.11891 of 2009 Date: 10.08.2009 Between : Kommarajula Komaramma … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Chief Secretary, General Administration (Law & Order.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.11891 of 2009 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel 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 Kommurajula @ Kommarajula Chandramouli, s/o. Mallaiah, aged 32 years, resident of Samithisingaram of Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District, who is detained in Central Prison, Warangal, pursuant to the impugned order of detention, dated 31.03.2009, in proceedings Cr.No.67/2009/P&Ex/A3, passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Khammam District, and the consequential orders passed by the first respondent in G.O.Rt.No.1724, General Administration (Law & Order-II) Department, dated 8.4.2009 and also G.O.Rt.No.2065, General Administration (Law & Order-II) Department, dated 1.5.2009, before this Court and to release him, forthwith. 3. The husband of the petitioner was allegedly involved in trafficking of illicit liquor and taking into account of his frequent involvement in the said activity, the competent authority i.e., the Collector and District Magistrate, Khammam District, the second respondent herein, exercising the jurisdiction conferred under Section 3 (1) and (2) read with Section 2 (a) and (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas and Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 passed the order of detention, dated 31.3.2009, and eventually the Government i.e., the first respondent had passed final order vide G.O.Rt.No.2065, General Administration (Law & Order-II) Department, dated 1.5.2009, confirming the order passed by the competent authority, and as a result of which the detenu was directed to be detained for a period of 12 (twelve) months from the date of his detention i.e., 01.04.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking production of the alleged detenu and to release him, forthwith. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though there are as many as five instances basing on which the impugned order of detention was passed, most of them are stale incidents, inasmuch as they pertain to the year 2007-08. It is his contention that though the last incident mentioned in the grounds of detention i.e., Crime No.667/08-09, dated 7.12.2008, is pertaining to the incident occurred three months prior to the order of detention, in view of the other incidents, which have become stale, the same cannot be taken into account by the detaining authority for passing the impugned order of detention. 5. At the outset, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained in view of the principle laid down by this Court in DODDI SHARADA v. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE[1]. As already noticed, the last incident among various other incidents cited in the grounds of detention was just three months prior to the passing of the impugned order of detention, dated 31.3.2009, therefore, the question of the other instances becoming stale does not arise. 6. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the Analyst opined that the samples collected from the illicit liquor seized from the detenu was found to be unfit for human consumption and injurious to health, there is no material supplied by the Analyst to the detaining authority in support of his analysis and hence the detaining authority cannot pass the impugned order of detention basing on the said report of the Analyst. 7. This contention of the learned counsel also cannot be sustained for the reason that it is the opinion of the Expert, which revealed that the substance seized from the possession of the detenu was proved to be injurious to health and unfit for human consumption. No further material need be supplied by the Analyst to establish his opinion. 8. In view of the above, we are of the view that there is no illegality or irregularity to interfere with the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent and the consequential order passed by the first respondent and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 10.08.2009. Msr THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 11891 of 2009 10.08.2009 (Msr) [1] 2005 (2) ALT 244 (F.B.)