HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No. 11716 of 2011 Between: P.Pullamma …. Petitioner and Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary. …. Respondent This court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.11716 of 2011 ORDER :- (per AGR, J) This writ petition has been filed by the wife of Penugonda Nagaraju (hereinafter referred to as “the detenu”), who is detained by virtue of an order of detention, dated 13.02.2011, made under Section 3(1) & (2) read with Section 2(a) & (b) of A.P.Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986), as approved by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.776, General Administration, (Law & Order.II) Department, dated 22.02.2011, for issuing a direction to the respondents to produce the detenu detained in Central Prison, Cherlapalli and to release him forthwith. 2. Briefly stated the alleged activities of the detenu as set out in the grounds of detention, dated 13.02.2011, are that prior to the detention, the alleged detenu was arrested in the following cases booked by the Prohibition and Excise Officials of Nandyal, Kurnool district. 1. Cr.No.778/2009-10 dated 23.03.2010 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Nandyal, the alleged detenu was found to have been in possession of 15 litres of Illicitly Distilled arrack (I.D. arrack). 2. Cr.No.11/2010-11, dated 06.04.2010 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Nandyal the alleged detenu was found selling I.D. arrack. 3. Cr.No.123/2010-11, dated 26.06.2010, of Prohibition and Excise Station, Nandyal for involving 5 liters of I.D.arrack. 4. Cr.No.274/2010-11, dated 14.09.2010, of Prohibition and Excise Station, Nandyal for involving 5 liters of I.D.liquor. 3. In all the above cases, the detenu was found to be in possession and transporting Illicitly Distilled liquor (I.D. liquor), which are injuries to health and unfit for human consumption, in contravention of the provisions of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. In all the cases, contraband was seized and samples were drawn and sent to the Government Chemical Examiner, Kurnool. As per the Chemical Analysts’ reports, it was found that all the samples drawn from the seized contraband was found to be “illicitly distilled liquor injuries to health and unfit for human consumption.” 4. In all the above cases, the detenu was arrested and produced before the Court. As the detenu was continuously involving in the bootlegging activities i.e., possessing, storing and sale of I.D.liquor for money gain in Nandyal, which is unfit for human consumption, and as it will adversely affect the public health, the sponsoring authority that is Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nandyal, Kurnool District, placed all the material before the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool. The Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool District in exercise of the powers vested in him under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Act 1/1986 ordered for his detention until further orders and be lodged in Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District, by the impugned order. The Government in their order in G.O.Rt.No.776, General Administration (Law & Order) Department, dated 23.02.2011, in exercise of the powers under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Act 1/1986, accorded approval to the order of detention passed by the Collector. Thereafter, the Government referred the matter to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the Act 1/1986, which, after hearing the detenu, the Investigating Officers and after perusing the connected records made available to it, opined that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu, Penugonda Nagaraju. The Government after taking into consideration the report of the Advisory Board and the material available on record, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 12 r/w 13 of the Act 1/1986, through G.O.Rt.No.1128, General Administration (Law & Order.II) Department, dated 15.03.2011, confirmed the order of detention and directed that the detention of the detenu be continued for a period of 12 months from the date of his detention i.e. 14.02.2011. Hence this writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed by the wife of the alleged detenu contending that the detenu is illiterate and he cannot read or write Telugu or English. After serving the detention order and the grounds of detention he was merely told in the prison by the police that he was detained in the central prison because he was dealing with illicit liquor which was unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. He was not explained the contents of grounds of detention and the documents accompanying the said grounds. The detenu sent representation to the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh under Crime No.CPCH 3620/2011 and to the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool under crime No.CPCH 3621/2011, through the Superintendent of Central Prison, Cherlapally and no reply has been received by the detenu and the inaction on the part of the Government of Andhra Pradesh is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In none of the cases I.D. arrack was seized in the presence of mediators, common excuse being tried for mediators, but in vain. The material accompanying the grounds of detention would disclose that the detenu was released by the Magistrate, either on the same day or on subsequent dates and the police can always resist the release of the detenu on bail, who do not appear to have resisted his detention, which would clearly indicate that the alleged cases against the detenu are foisted one. Therefore, she prayed for setting aside the detention order. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Collector and District Magistrate reproducing the order of detention and the grounds of detention stating that upon perusing the material placed before him, by the sponsoring authority, he was satisfied that the detenu shall be prevented from further indulging into similar offences in future and thereby he passed the order of detention, by serving the detention order as well as the grounds of detention and material relied upon for passing the detention order in English and Vernacular language i.e., Telugu and duly informing that he has a right to make a representation to the detaining authority and Advisory Board and thus the constitutional and statutory mandate has been complied with. At the time of taking the detenu into custody, the order of detention and the grounds of detention were served on him to enable him to make an effective representation and denied the allegation that the detenu was not explained the contents of grounds of detention and the documents accompanying the grounds of detention. A representation was submitted by the detenu, dated 15.03.2011, through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, R.R.District to the Principal Secretary to Home Department, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. After receiving communication from the Office of the Advocate General, the Government on 27.04.2011, requested the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, Rangareddy District to forward the representation, if any, sent by the detenu. On such request, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally forwarded the representation made by the detenu, dated 15.03.2011, to the Principal Secretary to Home Department. As and when the Government passed the orders on the said representation, the same will be communicated to the detenu. 6. Sri T.Bali Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner emphatically contends that since the detenu is an illiterate and cannot read or write Telugu, mere furnishing the detention order; the grounds of detention and the material relied for detaining the petitioner in both the languages, do not satisfy the requirement and the same has to be read out and explained to him in Telugu. Since the same has not been explained to the detenu in the known language, the detention order is liable to be set aside. He further contends that the representation made by the detenue to the Government has not been considered and the same is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the detention order cannot be sustained. In support of the said submissions reliance is placed on the following: 1) Smt.Raziya Umar Bakshi v. Union of India[1]. 2) K.M.Abdulla Kunhi & B.L.Abdul Khader v. Union of India[2] 7. Smt.Mohana Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader, while sustaining the detention order contended that the detenu was indulging in selling the illicitly distilled liquor and even after he was enlarged on bail in one case he continued to indulge in the said clandestine activities of transporting illicit liquor involving Boot legging operations. Since the consumption of I.D.Liquor is injurious to public health as per the chemical analysis report, to prevent such activity detention order has been made by the detaining authority. At the time of detaining the detenu into custody, the order of detention and the grounds of detention were served on him both in Telugu and English languages, enabling him to make an effective representation to the detaining authority. The representation made by the petitioner has been rejected by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.2400, dated 01.06.2011, and the same was served on the detenu on 03.06.2011 and produced the files to the said effect. 8 . I n Smt.Raziya Umar Bakshi’s case, the detenu was detained under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (for brevity, “COFEPOSA”), wherein the detention order was challenged specifically stating that the detenu does not know English. No vernacular translation of the grounds was given nor they were explained to the detenu in a language known to him. The said allegation was denied in the counter stating that one A.K.Sharma, Police Inspector, had explained to the detenu the order of detention on the grounds communicated to him. Under those circumstances, the Supreme Court was of the view that the affidavit is wholly inadmissible in evidence, if it was a fact that Mr.Sharma had personally explained the grounds to the detenu then the respondents should have filed an affidavit of Mr.Sharma himself to show that he had actually explained the contents of the grounds to the detenu by translating the same in the language which he understood. Since no such affidavit has been forthcoming, the Supreme Court held that the service of the grounds of detention on the detenu is a precious constitutional right and where the grounds are couched in a language which is not known to the detenu, unless the contents of the grounds are fully explained and translated to the detenu, it will tantamount to not serving the grounds of detention to the detenu and would thus vitiate the detention ex facie. 9. In the present case on hand, it is not denied by the petitioner that the material relied upon both under English and Telugu language were known to him and were furnished to the petitioner. Further when the detenu was produced before the Advisory Board, he has not complained that the grounds of detention have not been explained to him in the language known to him. In the representation made by the petitioner to the detaining authority through the Superintendent of Central Prison, Cherlapalli, dated 15.03.2011, it was stated that the bundle of papers said to contain grounds of detention and some material relating to Excise Cases were handed over to his wife making her to get him release through the court of law; that the Excise Police have filed false cases against him and placed them before the Collector and District Magistrate, who passed the detention order; that he never indulged in the sale of I.D.Arrack nor was in possession of liquor at any time. The averments mentioned in the grounds of detention are stereo type. In none of the cases I.D.arrack was seized in the presence of mediators. The petitioner has not complained that he was not explained the grounds of detention so that he can make an effective representation, but the fact remains that he made an effective representation to the Government contraverting the contents of the grounds of detention and the cases booked against him. The purpose of explaining the grounds of detention and furnishing the same in the language known to him is only for the purpose of making an effective representation by the detenu. Since the petitioner understood the grounds of detention as per the representation as above, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that by not explaining the grounds of detention, prejudice has been caused to him and the detention order will not vitiate the detention. Further when it is specially pleaded in the counter affidavit that the grounds of detention were explained to the petitioner and he was also informed that he can make a representation, no reply has been filed contraverting the said fact. In view of the same, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that non explanation of the grounds of detention in the language known to the petitioner, would vitiate the detention order. 10. The next ground urged by the learned Senior Counsel that the representation made to the Government by the petitioner has not been considered. Therefore, the detention order is liable to be set aside. Since the representation filed by the petitioner has already been rejected by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.2400, dated 01.06.2011 and the same was also furnished to him on 03.06.2011, after filing the counter affidavit, which is evident from the record produced by the learned Special Government Pleader, we do not see any merit in the said contention. Admittedly, the representation is made not prior to the approval of the detention order, but it is made only after approving the detention order, and which has also been disposed of by the Government. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merit. 11. The Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J _____________ RAJA ELANGO, J Lmv HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No. 11716 of 2011 Date: - - 2011 [1] AIR 1980 SC 1751 [2] AIR 1991 SC 574