HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Writ Petition No. 27068 of 2007 22.01.2008 Between: Shaik Mahaboob Bi … Petitioner AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad & others … Respondents O R D E R: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) Petitioner, who is the wife of the alleged detenu viz. Shaik Saida @ Chebrolu Saida, S/o Mugdam Saheb, Chebrolu, Guntur District, seeks to challenge the order dated 18.10.2007 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur, in exercise of his power under Sections 3(1), 3(2) read with Sections 2(a) and 2(g) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act No. 1 of 1986) (for short, ‘the Act’), directing the Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison, Rajahmundry to take the detenu into custody for a period of three months and prays to direct the respondents to release him forthwith. It is not necessary to go into details of the writ petition. Suffice it to say that through order dated 04.10.2007, the alleged detenu was directed to be taken into custody on the ground that he falls within the meaning of ‘boot legger’ under Section 2(g) of the Act, that accordingly he was taken into custody and was released on 15.10.2007 on the ground that the order of detention has not been approved by the State Government, as contemplated under Section 3(3) of the Act. Thereafter, through the order impugned, again he was ordered to be taken into custody for a period of three months from the date of taking him into custody vide grounds mentioned therein. Subsequently, an errata has been issued on 22.10.2007 in P.D. Act Case No. 2/2007-C1 through which the sentence “for a period of three months from the date of taking into custody” was deleted and substituted by the one “until further orders from the government”. Respondent No. 2 filed counter-affidavit, wherein it has been stated that since the earlier order of detention dated 04.10.2007 was defective, the detenu was released and as there was necessity to detain him, again he passed order dated 18.10.2007. He further stated that as there was lacuna in the said order, he issued an amendment on 22.10.2007 and the same was served on the detenu also. He further stated that on 27.11.2007, the order of detention passed against the detenu for a period of 12 months from the date of his detention, has been placed before the Advisory Board, which opined that there is sufficient cause for his detention and the Government approved the same through G.O. Rt. No. 7339, General Administration (L&O.II) Department, dated 04.12.2007. Sri P. Bal Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that incidents Nos. 1 to 4 mentioned in the detention order are of the years 1994 to 1996 and those mentioned at Sl. Nos. 5 and 6 are of the years 2005 and 2007 respectively and in the second case which is of the year 1994, the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal Court. He further contends that there is no nexus and proximity between the incidents. According to him, once the order of detention was not approved by the government and the detenu was released, the impugned order passed by the District Collector again detaining the detenu for the very same offences cannot be sustained in law and the same is liable to be set aside. The Supreme Court in Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar v. N. L. Kalna[1] held that even if the order of detention comes to an end either by revocation or by expiry of the period of detention, there must be fresh facts for passing a subsequent order. When a detention order is quashed by the Court issuing a high prerogative writ like habeas corpus or certiorari, the grounds of the said order should not be taken into consideration either as a whole or in part even along with the fresh grounds of detention for drawing the requisite subjective satisfaction to pass a fresh order because once the Court strikes down an earlier order by issuing rule it nullifies the entire order. This Court in Writ Petition No.16427 of 2007 had taken a view that since the matter has been considered by the Advisory Board, on reference, and has been confirmed by the Government, the order passed by the Collector and District Magistrate detaining the detenu as boot legger for a period of three months from the date of detention order, prejudiced his case and the writ petition has to succeed on this ground alone. This Court further held that law permitting preventive detention must be meticulously followed both substantively and procedurally by the detaining authority. Having regard to the fact that the earlier detention order was not approved by the State Government and the detenu was released from detention on 15.10.2007, the action of the respondents in again detaining him on the very same grounds cannot be sustained in law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order of detention is set aside. The detenu, namely Shaik Saida @ Chebrolu Saida, S/o Mudgam Saheb, Chebrolu, Guntur District shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. There shall be no order as to costs. A. GOPAL REDDY, J NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 22.01.2008 ksld [1] AIR 1989 SC 1234