THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.17439 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard Sri Mohd. Muzaffer Ullah Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce one Kali Raj Kumar, husband of the petitioner, who is now detained in Central Prison, Cherlapalli, Hyderabad. 3. Pursuant to the order of detention, dated 31.03.2009, passed by the first respondent-the Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, under Section 3 (1) read with Section 2 (a) and (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for brevity ‘the Act’), the detenu was subjected to detention. 4. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, it is apt to extract the grounds of detention, as mentioned in the order of detention, dated 31.03.2009, which are thus: (1) That on 22.12.2008, one Sri A.Narsimha Rao, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, conducted raid at H.No.13-10-8, Sriramnagar Colony, Parthivada Village, Saroornagar Mandal and detected 255 sachets of illicitly distilled liquor and on enquiry, the local people confessed that the same belongs to the detenu, as such a case in COR.No.470/2008-09 of SHO., Saroornagar was registered against him. (2) That on 09.01.2009, the detenu was found selling 650 sachets of illicitly distilled liquor, as such a case in COR.No.492/2008- 09 of S.H.O., Saroornagar was registered against him. (3) That on 05.02.2009, at APSRTC bus stand, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, two women, who were in possession of four plastic bags each containing 15 litres of illicitly distilled liquor, were arrested and they confessed that the detenu supplied them the same, and as such, a case in COR.No.539/2008-09 was registered against the detenu under Section 7A read with Section 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. (4) That on 13.02.2009, at Sriramnagar Colony, Parthivada, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, the police personnel detected two rubber tubes containing 80 + 80 litres of illicitly distilled liquor and on enquiry, the local people confessed that the same belongs to the detenu, as such case in COR.No.557/2008-09 was registered against the detenu under Section 7A read with Section 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. 5. In all the above cases, the samples were drawn and were examined by the Analyst, who gave the report that the said liquor was not fit for human consumption. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the copy of the impugned order was supplied to the detenu in English, which language is not known to him; that since the detenu belongs to Pardhi community and his mother tongue is Hindi, the impugned order shall have to be set aside on this ground. 7. In this regard, it is to be seen that the detenu had signed on the impugned order in English and further it has been brought to the notice of this Court that Pardhi community though speaks Hindi or their own language, which does not have any script. It appears that this information is correct for the simple reason that the detenu had acknowledged the receipt of the impugned order in English on all the pages. 8. It is to be further seen that no complaint appears to have been made to the authorities, in this regard, and a copy of the impugned order is admitted to have been served on the detenu. If any objection of that sort had been taken, the same would have been recorded by the competent authorities and they might have thought of an alternative. So, obviously, no objection was taken by the detenu before the authorities concerned as regards the supply of copy of the impugned order in English to him. 9. The other contention of the petitioner in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, is that the detenu is an illiterate. In such a case, it is incomprehensive as to how even if a copy of the impugned order is supplied to him in Hindi, he can understand the same. 10. In other words, in any event, the detenu cannot read, inasmuch as, he is allegedly an illiterate. Again, it is incomprehensible as to how the detenu would put his signature in English when he is an illiterate. Therefore, we do not find any bona fides on the part of the detenu in raising this ground. 11. That apart, the matter was, admittedly, placed before the Advisory Board and the detenu was given a personal hearing before the Board, as contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. Since the averment that no such opportunity of personal hearing was given to the detenu is coming forth in the writ petition, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the information furnished by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. Consequently, when the detenu was physically present before the Advisory Board, he ought to have raised the objection regarding the non-supply of the impugned order in the language known to him. Obviously, again, no such complaint was made before the Advisory Board. If really any such objection had been taken, the Advisory Board would have certainly considered the same and recorded a finding in that regard. Further, it is not the case of the detenu that he raised an objection before the Advisory Board and the same was not considered. Hence, we reject the said contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in this regard. 12. The second objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the bail orders that were obtained by the detenu were not supplied to him. 13. In response to the said contention, it has been argued by learned Assistant Government Pleader that there is no necessity to supply the bail orders to the detenu. Only in cases, where the bail orders were conditional, such conditional orders alone have to be brought to the notice of the detenu. In support of her contention she relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in SUNILA JAIN vs. UNION OF INDIA[1], wherein it was held that if order granting bail contained certain conditions pursuant to or in furtherance of which detenu may or may not flee from justice, that may be a relevant consideration for detaining authority for which bail application and order thereon should be furnished Therefore, the supply of the bail orders in all the cases is not mandatory. Therefore, that contention is also liable to be rejected and accordingly the same is rejected. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. 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 28th October 2009 dr [1] (2006) 3 SCC 321