IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.22845 of 2008 Between: Matta Manohar Babu @ Nani S/o.Krishna Murthy R/o. Toorangi Village, Kakinada Rural East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration (Law & Order.III) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chief Secretary. 2 The Collector & District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada. .....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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus / Certiorari declaring order of the 2nd respondent dated 2.7.2008 made in detention No.C1 (M)/451/08, in detaining the petitioner and the consequential order of the 1st respondent made in G.O.Rt.No.4419, General Administration (Law & Order.III) Department dated 29.7.2008 as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power, non application of mind to the relevant material available on record, violative of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Oﬀenders, Goondas, Immoral Traﬃc Oﬀenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act No.1 of 1986) apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19 & 22 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. C.V.R.RUDRA PRASAD 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 G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.22845 of 2008 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, 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 assailing the order, dated 01-07-2008, in proceedings Ref: C1(M)/451/08 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada, and the consequential order passed by the ﬁrst respondent- Government in G.O.Rt.No.4419, General Administration (Law & Order.II), dated 29-07-2008 against the petitioner viz., Sri Matta Manohar Babu @ Nani, s/o. Krishna Murthy, aged 39 years, resident of Eswar Colony, D.No.9-237, Turangi village of Kakinada Rural, East Godavari District, under Section 2 (G) 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”), who is now detained in Central Prison, Rajahmundry, as arbitrary and illegal and to release him forthwith. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, being an active member of Lorry Owners Association, Kakinada, was involved in several oﬀences in the surroundings of East Godavari District, which adversely aﬀect the public order. Taking into account of his frequent involvement in the said activity, by order dated 01-07-2008, the petitioner was directed to be detained by the competent authority i.e., the Collector & District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada, the second respondent herein, exercising the jurisdiction conferred under Section 2(G) of the Act and the same had been approved by the ﬁrst respondent-Government in G.O.Rt.No.4419, General Administration (Law & Order.II) Department, dated 29-07-2008, ordering detention of the petitioner for a period of 12 months. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. The grounds for passing the impugned order of detention against the petitioner are as many as 20. However, we do not feel it essential to reproduce all those grounds. 5. At the outset, it is to be seen that law is well settled to the eﬀect that irrelevant grounds shall not be the basis for passing an order like the present one. 6. In the present case, Ground Nos.7 to 20 are totally irrelevant, inasmuch as, they are the oﬀences covered under Chapters 16, 17 and 22 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity “I.P.C.”). Law provides for the competent authority to pass orders of preventive detention for the oﬀences other than covered by the above said Chapters of I.P.C. In other words, the oﬀences covered under the above Chapters of I.P.C. are exempted from the jurisdiction of the competent authority for passing an order under the Act. In view of the above, the impugned order suﬀers from inﬁrmity on the ground of non- application of mind. No further elaboration of the oﬀences and other facts on record are required to be elaborated. 7. The very fact that the grounds which are not relevant and which cannot be based for passing an order under the Act is suﬃcient to set aside the impugned order. This legal proposition is supported by the judgment of the apex Court in MOHD. YOUSUF RATHER v. STATE OF J. AND K.[1] 8. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the above lapse pointed out on the part of the competent authority would vitiate the order of detention and hence the impugned order of detention and all other consequential proceedings passed against the petitioner are liable to the set aside. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, at the stage of admission, setting aside the detention order, dated 01-07- 2008, in proceedings Ref: C1(M)/451/08 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada, and the consequential order passed by the ﬁrst respondent- Government in G.O.Rt.No.4419, General Administration (Law & Order.II), dated 29-07-2008 against the alleged detenu viz., Sri Matta Manohar Babu @ Nani, s/o. Krishna Murthy, aged 39 years, resident of Eswar Colony, D.No.9-237, Turangi village of Kakinada Rural, East Godavari District, under Section 2 (G) 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 alleged detenu 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 G.CHANDRAIAH 13-11-2008. Msr. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.22845 of 2008 13-11-2008 (Msr) [1] (1979) 4 SCC 370