IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY 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 : 7178 of 2008 Between: Pullemla Chandramma, W/o.Venkulu, R/o.Chityal Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Chief Secretary, General Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Collector and District Magistrate, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 3 The Superintendent of Central Prison, Warangal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus by directing the respondents to produce the detenu Sri Pullemla Venkulu, S/o.Rekhaiah, aged about 55 years, R/o.Chityal Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District before this hon'ble Court and set him at liberty by declaring the order dated 17.12.2007 issued by Rc.No.1468/2007/C2, passed by the 2nd respondent here in a illegal, and pass appropriate orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: 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.7178 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 17.12.2007, passed by the second respondent-the Collector and District Magistrate, Nalgonda District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the competent authority’), whereby the petitioner was subjected to detention under Section 3 (1) and (2) read with Section 2 (a) & (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. 3. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is obvious that the competent authority had relied on five instances wherein the petitioner was involved in trafficking of illicitly distilled (for short ‘I.D.,’) liquor and having been satisfied that the I.D., liquor was injurious to health, held that the said act of the petitioner was prejudicial to the public order and that he also made a reference that there were several oral complaints received against the petitioner about his illegal activities causing wide spread danger to the public health and accordingly, passed the order of detention. 4. Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that though there is a ground in the impugned order, which refers to the oral complaints received against the petitioner about the illegal activities allegedly perpetrated by him, the details of which were not disclosed. As such, the said ground mentioned by the competent authority in the impugned order suffers from illegality, inasmuch as, the same is absolutely vague and is not capable of making any effective representation by the petitioner to the higher authority. Therefore, he submits that the entire impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the reasons mentioned therein are partly vague, rendering the petitioner incapable of making any effective representation, as provided under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, submits that the latter part of the impugned order, insofar as oral complaints against the petitioner about the trafficking of I.D., liquor, is only a passing observation or remark and therefore, the same need not be attached with any significance. 6. She further submits that before referring to the oral complaints made against the petitioner, the competent authority had already referred to five instances, and basing on those crime numbers in which the petitioner was involved in similar nature of offences, on different occasions, passed the order of detention since the petitioner has been continuing to abuse the process of Andhra Pradesh Excise and Prohibition Acts, by way of transporting I.D., liquor, which causes health hazards to the consumers. Hence, the crime numbers, which have been registered against the petitioner and referred to by the competent authority, while passing the order of detention, are crystallized instances and, inasmuch as, a finding was already recorded, the further observation made by the competent authority that there were several oral complaints also against the petitioner need not be taken into consideration. 7. In this context, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on two judgments of the apex Court in DWARIKA PRASAD SAHU vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS[1] and RAM BAHADUR RAI vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS[2] , particularly on the observations of Their Lordships in RAM BAHADUR RAI’s case (2 supra) at paragraph No.24, which are thus: - “The first ground being vague and the second irrelevant, the order of detention is liable to be set aside. It is too late in the day to contend, as the learned Advocate General did, that the detaining authority assesses the cumulative effect of the activities of the detenu while passing the order of detention. Where the order of detention is founded on distinct and separate grounds if any one of the grounds is vague or irrelevant the entire order must fall. The satisfaction of the detaining authority being subjective, it is impossible to predicate whether the order would have been passed in the absence of vague or irrelevant data.” 8. Though the said judgment is wholly unexceptionable, the same cannot be made applicable to the present case for the reason that there is no vagueness in any of the grounds shown by the competent authority in the impugned order. 9. The first five grounds deals with different instances, where the petitioner was found to have been involved in trafficking of I.D., liquor, crime numbers were also registered in that regard and the investigation is pending. Of course, he was released on bail in those cases, which fact was also put to the notice of the petitioner. 10. Insofar as several oral complaints made against the petitioner, mentioned in the impugned order, we are of the view that, in fact, the same cannot be termed as a ground at all. It is only just a passing observation. We cannot perceive that actually these oral complaints made against the petitioner weighed with the mind of the competent authority while passing the order of detention. 11. The reason for us to arrive at the above conclusion is that the competent authority had already arrived at a conclusion basing on five different instances where the petitioner was found to have been involved in trafficking I.D., liquor and immediately, after formulating those five instances as grounds, he had expressed his opinion in categorical terms which, in our considered view, is relevant to extract for better appreciation of the case and ready reference, and the same is extracted hereunder: - “In all the above cases and analysis, the contraband liquor involved was found to be illicitly distilled liquor containing sediment. They are injurious to health and unfit for human consumption, which are injurious to public health and such unfit for human consumption. It is evident from the above facts that you have been actively indulging in boot-legging activities of purchase, transportation and sale/distribution of illicitly distilled liquor in Chityal of Chityal Mandal and its surroundings deliberately violating the provisions of A.P. Prohibition Act, and Excise Act in spite of ban on sale of Arrack sine 01.10.1993. Further, it is clear that in spite of booking a number of cases by the Prohibition and Excise Department against you, you have been continuing to abuse the provisions of A.P. Excise and Prohibition Acts. The illicitly distilled liquor sold by you is Organic acids, Higher alcohols, Aldehydes, Furfural and other impurities in large quantities apart from alcohol, which are injurious to public health and as such unfit for human consumption. It is evident from the above facts that you are actively indulging in boot- legging activities of purchase, transportation and sale/distribution of illicitly distilled liquor in Nandigama Town and it surroundings deliberately violating the provisions of A.P. Prohibition Act, and Excise Act in spite of ban on sale of arrack since 01.10.1993. Further, it is clear that in spite of booking a number of cases by the Prohibition and Excise Department against you, you are continuing to abuse the provisions of A.P. Excise and Prohibition Acts. The illicitly distilled liquor sold by you is injurious to health of the consuming public thereby effects public order.” 12. From the above, it is obvious that the competent authority was absolutely clear in its mind and recorded the reasons for ordering detention of the petitioner. Of course, subsequently, though just referred to various oral complaints made against the petitioner, as there was no proper basis, it could not put on record the details of same in explicit terms. Therefore, it cannot be treated as a ground for passing the order of detention. 13. Further, it could be perceived from the reasoning extracted above that it is only those first five instances, which actually weighed with the mind of the competent authority, but not the latter part of the order, where there was a passing observation regarding the oral complaints made against the petitioner. 14. If we put it in a different way, even de horse those oral complaints, the findings recorded and conclusions arrived at by the competent authority, basing on earlier five grounds and instances where crime numbers were registered against the petitioner and cases were pending investigation, were sufficient to the satisfaction of the competent authority for passing the order of detention and the reasoning, extracted above, makes it abundantly clear. 15. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made in this regard cannot be sustained. 16. In DWARIKA PRASAD SAHU’s case (1 supra), Their Lordships observed as under: - “It is well settled that in an order under the present Act the decision of the authority is a subjective one and if one of the grounds is nonexistent or irrelevant or is not available under the law, the entire detention order will fall since it is not possible to predicate as to whether the detaining authority would have made an order for detention even in the absence of non-existent or irrelevant ground.” 17. In this context, it is to be noted that these observations are also unexceptionable. Only when a ground, which is not available under law or irrelevant or non-existent, is made basis for passing the order of detention, then only the principle laid down by the apex Court, as extracted above, would apply. 18. Again, coming to the present case, as already pointed out, the second part of the impugned order before us does not contain any ground and it is only a passing observation. Nevertheless, if the same were taken as a ground either non- existent, irrelevant or not available to law, then this Court would have certainly taken cue from the principle laid down by the apex Court in the judgments referred to above and felt in favour of the petitioner. 19. The further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that though the material was supplied to the petitioner in English as well as Telugu, the copies supplied in English are illegible. As such, he contends, in this connection, that the petitioner has lost a valuable right provided for under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India to make an effective representation. 20. However, there is absolutely no dispute that the copies supplied to the petitioner in Telugu are legible. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner admits that the copies prepared in Telugu are translated copies from English. 21. When admittedly, the petitioner does not know either reading or writing English, and for that matter, not even Telugu properly, we are of the view that supply of documents, translated into Telugu from English, is sufficient, and it does not cause any apparent prejudice, much less substantial, to the petitioner as the Telugu copies supplied to him are quite sufficient to exercise his valuable right provided for under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. Our view is supported by the judgment of the apex Court in UMMU SALEEMA vs. B.B.GUJARAL[3], wherein at paragraph No.5 it is observed as under: - “The stress was upon the words “relied upon”. In Khudiram Das Vs. State of W.B.[4] the constitutional requirement of Article 22 (5) was stated as insistence that basic facts and particulars which influenced the detaining authority in arriving at the requisite satisfaction leading to the making of the order of detention must be communicated to the detenu so that the detenu may have an opportunity of making an effective representation against the order of detention. It is, therefore, clear that every failure to furnish copy of a document to which reference is made in the grounds of detention is not an infringement of Article 22 (5), fatal to the order of detention. It is only failure to furnish copies of such documents as were relied upon by the detaining authority, making it difficult for the detenu to make the effective representation, that amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 22 (5). In our view it is unnecessary to furnish copies of documents to which casual or passing reference may be made in the course of narration of facts and which are not relied upon by the detaining authority in making the order of detention. In the case before us we are satisfied that such were the two documents, copies of which were not furnished to the detenu. We are satisfied that the documents cannot be said to be documents which were relied upon by the detaining authority in making the order of detention. Therefore, the detenu could not properly complain that he was prevented from making an effective representation. There was no violation of the right guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution.” 22. So, on all counts, referred to above, we do not find any impropriety or illegality in the impugned order, passed by the competent authority. 23. Accordingly, the writ petition has to fail, as having no merits. 24. 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 K.C.BHANU 07TH JULY 2008 DR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Collector and District Magistrate, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 3 The Superintendent of Central Prison, Warangal, Warangal District. 4 2 CCs to Advocate General, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (OUT) 5 2 CD copies. [1] AIR 1975 SCC 134 [2] AIR 1975 SCC 223 [3] (1981) 3 SCC 317 [4] (1980) 4 SCC 531