IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 18014 of 2008 Between: Manna Naresh S/o. M. Vijaya Reddy R/o. Kallamitta Raghavaiah Peta, Sulurpet, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector & District Magistrate, Sri Potti Sreeramulu Nellore District. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent, Central Prison, Charlapalli, R.R. District. .....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 to issue a Writ of Habeaus Corpus under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondents to produce Velapa Reddy Sreenivasulu Reddy alias Seena Reddy now detained in Central Jail, Charlapalli before this Hon'ble Court and he may be released forthwith after declaring that his detention is illegal and void. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.18014 of 2008 Oral Order: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri C.Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, for respondents 1 to 3. 2. This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a direction to the respondents to produce one Velapa Reddy Sreenivasulu Reddy alias Seena Reddy (hereinafter called as ‘the detenu’), who is the uncle of the petitioner herein, now detained in Central Jail, Charlapalli before this Court and sought for his release after declaring his detention as illegal and void. 3. The order of detention, dated 05-7-2008 in RC.No.B/706/2008, was passed against the detenu under Section 3(2)(a) read with Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for brevity, ‘the Act 7 of 1980’) by the Collector and District Magistrate, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore district. 4. It is the averment in the said order of detention that the detenu had been indulging in the acts of – “organizing illegal collection of Public Distribution System rice (for brevity, ‘PDS rice’) from Fair Price shops, transporting the same with fake documents, obtaining documents illegally from borders check posts, which resulted in loss of revenue to the Government, depriving the poorest of the poor families of the beneﬁt of the subsidized rice, making proﬁt on such illegally got rice stocks by transporting and selling them in other States etc., and thus had become a habitual black-marketer and smuggler of rice.” 5. In order to arrive at the above conclusion, while passing the impugned order of detention, the Detaining Authority had relied on four incidents/circumstances, which are as under: Firstly; Crime No.823 of 2008, under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 read with Section 7(1)(a)(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for brevity, ‘the Act 10 of 1955’) of C.I.D CS., Vellore Unit of Tamil Nadu State. It has been elaborated that on 18-5-2008 at about 4.30 p.m., in a lorry the detenu was transporting 336 bags of PDS rice of Tamil Nadu State and the said loaded vehicle was stopped at Christianpetai Check Post by the Inspector, CID (CS), Vellore Unit of Tamil Nadu State while they were transporting to Bangarupeta of Karnataka State. Pursuant to the said crime number, as stated above, one Madhusudan was arrested, and the detenu along with one Ramesh, escaped and obtained anticipatory bail; Secondly; on 03-6-2008 at 12 noon, the Inspector of Police, Sullurpet caught lorry belonging to the detenu, loaded with PDS rice at Karuna Filling Station on National Highway No.5 near Sullurpet and seized the said vehicle and 333 bags of PDS rice belonging to the detenu, upon which Crime No.93 of 2008, under Sections 468 and 420 read with Section 109 I.P.C., was registered and after arrest, the detenu was remanded to judicial custody initially and subsequently he was released on bail; Thirdly; on 03-6-2008 the Inspector of Police, Sullurpet again surprised the ﬁelds in Survey Nos.208 and 251/4, located on the western side of Sivalayam in Vatambedu village of Tada Mandal, where 700 bags containing PDS rice were found. Upon the information was passed on to the Revenue authorities, the said stock was seized under a cover of mahazarnama and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.83 of 2008, under Section 420 I.P.C. The detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and subsequently, he was released on bail; and Fourthly; Crime No.57 of 2008, under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 read with Section 7(1)(a)(2) of the Act 10 of 1955 C.I.D (CS), Tiruvalluru Unit of Tamil Nadu State. In this case also, on 13-6-2008 at 8 a.m., the detenu was found transporting 932 bags of PDS rice of Tamil Nadu State in two lorries being piloted by two Indica cars, loaded with ﬁve bags each of PDS rice of Tamil Nadu State and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.57 of 2008, under Section 6(4) TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 read with Section 7(1)(a)(2) of the Act 10 of 1955. 6. From the above incidents, the Detaining Authority appears to have felt that the detenu through his agents illegally procured PDS rice and smuggled to other States. Using this network in a short duration of approximately 26 days, a total quantity of 2,311 bags of rice weighing about 1,000 quintals was being smuggled and was intercepted by the oﬃcials at the border between Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh States. The total cost of the said quantity was about Rs.18,00,000/-. 7. It was further felt by the Detaining Authority that the said quantity would be suﬃcient to distribute among 5,000 people who are below poverty line at the rate of 20 kgs., per family and because of this smuggling activity, those deserving families were deprived of the beneﬁt under the PDS scheme, and eventually felt that the same amounts to inter-State smuggling activity of rice through an organized network. 8. The impugned order of detention had been communicated to the detenu, wherein it has been speciﬁcally mentioned that he has a right to represent against that order of detention to -- (1) the Detaining Authority, (2) the Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, and (3) the Advisory Board. Consequent upon furnishing of the material by the Detaining Authority, the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Advisory Board appears to have concurred with the view taken by the Detaining Authority. Consequently, the present writ petition is filed. 9. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, contends that – firstly; ground Nos.1 and 4 in the order of detention are irrelevant grounds and those grounds cannot be relied on for the purpose of passing the impugned order of detention; secondly; the instances mentioned under ground Nos.2 and 3 in the order of detention were relating to the oﬀences under the Indian Penal Code but not under the Act 10 of 1955. In this connection, it is his further contention that the said acts mentioned in ground Nos.2 and 3 in the order of detention do not fall under explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act 7 of 1980; and thirdly; the detenu was not informed about his right of making a representation to the Central Government. 10. In the light of the said submissions, it is necessary to examine as to whether these grounds are sustainable. 11. Regarding the ﬁrst contention that ground Nos.1 and 4 in the order of detention are irrelevant, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that those instances took place in the State of Tamil Nadu and therefore, they do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Detaining Authority and if at all there is any such jurisdiction, the same can be exercised by the authorities of Tamil Nadu State under relevant laws of that State, but certainly do not fall under the oﬀences to be tried either under the Act 10 of 1955 or the Act 7 of 1980 by the authority of the State of Andhra Pradesh. 12. In this connection, it is necessary to be seen that basically the Act 10 of 1955 is a central legislation and the scope of the said enactment is pervasive all over the country. Similarly, the Act 7 of 1980 enables the Detaining Authority to pass the order of detention, as the impugned order is also a central legislation. The object of these enactments is broadly to provide certain essential commodities to the needy on a subsidized price and any violation can be taken note of by the authorities of the State and accordingly they can be tried for the said oﬀences under the Act 10 of 1955. This is the general principle, whereas the Act 7 of 1980 is intended to prevent such illegalities, which are palpable and are causing deprivation of the facility or beneﬁt extended to the needy under the Act 10 of 1955. Both Act 10 of 1955 and Act 7 of 1980 would not have any regional constraints as regards the jurisdiction of the oﬀences under the above Acts. It implies that the competent authorities of a particular State can take cognizance of an oﬀence if it is found to have been perpetrated in a particular district in the State. In other words, the place of generation of the oﬀence is immaterial. For example, in the present case, it is to be seen that the oﬀence was found to have been committed by the detenu, who actually belongs to the State of Andhra Pradesh, in the State of Tamil Nadu. But the PDS rice, which was found to have been transported to the State of Tamil Nadu, was from the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the deprivation, as already pointed out, had been caused to the needy people of a particular region in Andhra Pradesh and as a result, the oﬀence had its ignition in the State of Andhra Pradesh though ended in the other State. 13. Therefore, the place where the detenu was found to have been involved in the oﬀence under the above Laws is not very relevant, but, however, the place where the oﬀence had been generated and broadly the object of the Act had been defeated is more relevant. Essentially it is the people of that district or the people of surroundings who have actually been deprived of the beneﬁt of PDS rice under the above Laws. 14. Therefore, when the detenu who belongs to Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore district and the whole transaction appears to have been kick-started from that district, we are of the considered view that the competent authority of the State of Andhra Pradesh can always take into cognizance of the said offence and the same cannot be termed as irrelevant. 15. Same is the case in ground No.4 of the order of detention also. The only diﬀerence is -- the detenu was caught in two diﬀerent occasions in the State of Tamil Nadu. But the activity, which was prohibited under the Laws, is the same. Therefore, at any stretch of imagination, those two incidents, which had been relied on by the Detaining Authority for passing the impugned order of detention, cannot be said as irrelevant. 16. No doubt, the settled law is that irrelevant ground cannot be a base for passing the order of detention like the present one. Irrelevancy is something, which is not related with the object of that particular act under which, the violation was found to have been perpetrated. Therefore, the said contention of the learned Senior Counsel is held to be not sustainable. 17. Now, coming to the second contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the incidents 2 and 3 in the order of detention were registered as oﬀences punishable under the Indian Penal Code cannot be treated as a ground for passing the impugned order of detention. 18. In this regard, it is to be seen that from the very averments mentioned in the said crimes, those crimes are actually related with the violations of explanation to sub- section (1) of Section 3 of the Act 7 of 1980. In other words, the violations are essentially related with the provisions of the Act 10 of 1955. Some times, the offences which are punishable under the Act 10 of 1955 incidentally may also attract the provisions of the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. To illustrate, in item No.2 in the remand report, it was speciﬁcally mentioned that the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Oﬃcer, Integrated Check Post, BV Palem perused the transit pass and conﬁrmed that it was not the transit pass issued by them and the stamps and signatures on the transit pass were fake. In fact, all the documents found in possession of the person transporting the stock were found to be fake and forged. 19. In such an event, proceedings need not necessarily be initiated only under the Act 7 of 1980 or under the Act 10 of 1955, when the same amounts to an oﬀence under the Indian Penal Code also. The standard proof, the procedure of seizure of the stocks and the process of adjudication would diﬀer from each other in case of the oﬀence being tried under any of these three enactments. 20. As already pointed out, Act 10 of 1955 is essentially a beneﬁcial piece of legislation. If there are any violations of the provisions of the Act 10 of 1955, they may have to be tried under the provisions of that particular Act or if there is any element of oﬀence/crime, the same may has to be tried under the Code of Criminal Procedure, treating it as the offence under the Indian Penal Code. 21. Even otherwise, the act perpetrated by the detenu is an act related with the provisions of the Act 7 of 1980. 22. The learned Senior Counsel contends that the incidents under item Nos.2 and 3 of the impugned order of detention do not fall within the ambit of explanation to sub- section (1) of Section 3 of the Act 7 of 1980. 23. For ready reference, Section 3 of the Act 7 of 1980, to the extent relevant, is extracted hereunder: “3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.—(1) The Central Government or a State Government or any oﬃcer of the Central Government, not below the rank of a joint Secretary to that Government specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, or any oﬃcer of a State Government, not below the rank of a Secretary to that Government specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, may, if satisﬁed, with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community” means— (a) committing or instigating any person to commit any oﬀence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), or under any other law for the time being in force relating to the control of the production, supply or distribution of, or trade and commerce in, any commodity essential to the community; or (Emphasis supplied by us) (b) dealing in any commodity— (i) which is an essential commodity as deﬁned in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), or (ii) With respect to which provisions have been made in any such other law as is referred to in clause (a), With a view to making gain in any manner which may directly or indirectly defeat or tend to defeat the provisions of that Act or other law aforesaid. (2) ………………………………………………………. (3) ………………………………………………………. (4) ……………………………………………………….” 24. From a plain reading of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act 7 of 1980, it is obvious that the offence need not necessarily be under the Act 10 of 1955 and on the contrary, may be under any other law. However, the same shall be relating to the control of production supplied or distribution of the trade and commerce of any commodity essential to the community. Therefore, it is suﬃcient if an oﬀence is committed under any law touching upon the provisions of the Act 10 of 1955, to invoke the jurisdiction by the Detaining Authority under Section 3 of the Act 7 of 1980. Even otherwise, the substance of the oﬀence mentioned in item Nos.2 and 3 of the impugned order of detention are obviously relating to the oﬀences under the Act 10 of 1955. So, at best, the same may not amount to an oﬀence under the Criminal Procedure Code, but would certainly fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Act 10 of 1955, and any gross violations thereof are suﬃcient to invoke the jurisdiction vested with the competent authority under Section 3 of the Act 7 of 1980. Therefore, this contention of the learned Senior Counsel also cannot be acceded to. 25. Apropos the third and the last contention of the learned Senior Counsel viz., the detenu was not accorded the opportunity of making a representation to the Central Government, it is to be seen that Section 8 of the Act 7 of 1980 is the only provision, which enables the detenu under the present circumstances to make a representation to the State Government. There is no such facility made available under the law to make a representation to the Central Government also, merely on the ground that the matter would be forwarded to the Central Government within seven days from the date of passing of the order of detention, as postulated under sub- section (4) of Section 3 of the Act 7 of 1980. 26. For ready reference, sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act 7 of 1980 is extracted as under: “(4) When any order is made or approved by the State Government under this section or when any order is made under this section by an oﬃcer of the State Government not below the rank of Secretary to that Government specially empowered under sub-section (1), the State Government shall, within seven days, report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government, have a bearing on the necessity for the order.” 27. Undisputedly, there is no violation in this regard i.e., within the prescribed period the matter has been reported to the Central Government. In fact, sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act 7 of 1980 contemplates that the report together with the grounds, on which the order of detention has been made, has to be forwarded by the State Government. 28. In this context, it is to be further seen that almost the entire material has to be forwarded to the Central Government for consideration and the Central Government can arrive at an independent decision on its own basing on the material made available to it. 29. It is borne out from the record that an opportunity has been accorded and the same has been indicated to the detenu to make a representation to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, which would presumably in the record of the State Government and the same would be part and parcel of the record that are expected to be forwarded to the Central Government. 30. Therefore, it is implied that when such an opportunity has been accorded and put to the detenu that he has a right to make a representation to the State Government, it should be treated as a representation made to the Central Government also, inasmuch as such representation would form part of the record that had been forwarded to the Central Government. No apparent prejudice is caused or likely to be caused to the detenu if no such information about the right of the detenu to make a representation to the Central Government is put to him, particularly when the Statute does not provide for such opportunity. 31. At this stage, the learned Assistant Government Pleader placed the record before this Court from which, we could see that the detenu did not opt to make any representation at all to the State Government. In such a case, the third and the last contention of the learned Senior Counsel cannot be considered at all. 32. For the foregoing, we ﬁnd no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 33. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 17th September, 2008. Ak ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}