THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.No. 5300 of 2011 ORDER: (Per AGRJ) The detention order passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District, in proceedings R.C.No. C1(M)/1181/2010, dated 22.12.2010 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) and (2) read with Section 2(a) and (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Oﬀenders, Goondas, Immoral Traﬃc Oﬀenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1/86) (for short ‘the Act’) ordering detention of Kudupudi Venkata Rao @ Ramana, S/o. Rama Rao, R/o. Near Ramalayam, Medaripeta, Rajahmundry Town, East Godavari District, husband of the petitioner for a period of twelve months from the date of detention as approved by the State Government in G.O.Rt.No.6275 General Administration (Law & Order-II) Department, dated 28.12.2010 and conﬁrmed as such in G.O.Rt.No.342 General Administration (Law and Order. II) Department dated 24.01.2011 is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The order of detention and the grounds of detention along with necessary material papers, which were served on the detenu in both Telugu and English languages show that the detenu was involved in three crimes. In Cr.No.296/10-11 dated 19.07.2010, the detenu was arrested by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rajahmundry North while he was transporting 70 liters of I.D. liquor on a scooter along with Maddina Ramu (A2), at the road margin at Somalamma Temple Center, Rajahmundry Town. In Cr.No.550/10-11 dated 02.11.2010, the detenu along with Kandibatla Ramesh (A2) were arrested by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rajahmundry North while transporting 40 liters of I.D. liquor on a scooter at the road margin, opposite to Muslim Burial Ground, Near Somalamma Temple, Rajahmundry Town. In Cr.No.598/10- 11 dated 12.11.2010, the detenu was arrested by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rajahmundry North while he was in possession of 400 liters of I.D. liquor at D.No. 43-8-29(2), Churchpeta, Rajahmundry along with Margani Ramya (A2). In all the cases, the contraband was seized, samples were drawn and were sent for chemical examination. The chemical examiner analyzed the samples and gave his opinion that the samples are unﬁt for human consumption and injurious to health. The detenu was charge sheeted for the oﬀences under Sections 8(e) read with 7-A of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and was produced before the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry for remand and released on bail later. In the detention order, it is mentioned that earlier also the District Collector, East Godavari District, who is the detaining authority in R.C.No.12/A4/2007 dated 24.01.2007 detained the detenu under the Act on the ground of his involvement in sixteen crimes referred to in the detention order and that inspite of the same, he did not mend his behaviour and involved in the above three crimes and therefore, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that the detenu is a habitual oﬀender in bootlegging activities. In all the sixteen crimes, the Chemical Examiner’s report reveals that the liquor contains organic acids, aldihydes, higher alcohol and other impurities and it is injurious to public health. As such taking all the facts into consideration that is the three crimes referred to earlier and the sixteen crimes which were registered earlier to the three crimes, the detaining authority passed the detention order informing the detenu that he can make a representation to the Detaining Authority or Advisory Board or Chief Secretary to Government. After approval by the Government, the detention order was placed before the Advisory Board in its meeting held on 18.01.2011. After hearing the detenu and the investigating oﬃcer and after perusing the records, the Advisory Board gave its opinion that there is suﬃcient cause for detention of the detenu Kudupudi Venkata Rao @ Ramana. Basing on the recommendations of the Advisory Board, the Government conﬁrmed the detention order in G.O.Rt.No.342 dated 24.1.2011. Detaining authority ﬁled a counter stating that he arrived at subjective satisfaction basing on the Chemical Examiner’s Report in the above three crimes wherein he opined that the samples are unﬁt for human consumption and injurious to health. As such it cannot be said that he passed the order of detention basing on the material placed by the Sponsoring Authority in sixteen crimes. Apart from the above three crimes, the detenu is also involved in several crimes and the said crimes are reﬂected in the remand reports of the detenu in the above three crimes and the said material is placed before him and is also furnished to the detenu for making an effective representation. It is not in dispute that the earlier detention order was successfully challenged by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.5417 of 2007 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 02.04.2007 in terms of the order passed in W.P.11247 of 2006 dated 30.08.2006 by setting aside the detention order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the earlier detention order has been set aside by this Court, the same cannot be relied upon by the detaining authority for detaining the detenu. Therefore, the entire subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is on non-existing grounds and the order of detention is liable to be set aside. Per contra, Ms. Mohana Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader states that the detention order was passed only referring to the three crimes but not basing on the crimes registered earlier to the three crimes. Only an observation is made by the detaining authority about the crimes committed earlier. Since the detenu is continuously involving in transportation of illicit distilled liquor, the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction basing on the three crimes but not basing on the other crimes as observed in the detention order. Though the argument advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appears to be attractive but a reading of the detention order clearly discloses that the detaining authority relied upon all the earlier crimes, while passing the detention order. Once the earlier detention order has been set aside by the High Court, again referring to the said crimes while passing the present detention order will be construed as passing of the order on a non- existing ground. If one of the grounds or reasons which led to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is non existent or misconceived or irrelevant, the order of detention would be invalid and it would not avail the detaining authority to contend that the other grounds or reasons are good and do not suﬀer from any such inﬁrmity, because it can never be predicated as to whether the detention order would have been made at all even in the absence of non-existent or irrelevant grounds. (see DWARIKA PRASAD v STATE OF BIHAR (A.I.R. 1975 SC 134). It is also well settled that subjective satisfaction must be real and rational, not random divination, must ﬂow from an advertence to relevant factors, not be a mock recital or mechanical chant of statutorily sanctiﬁed phrases. (See SADHU v STATE OF W.B.1975 Crl. L.J. 784). In view of the conclusion reached by us, the detention order passed by the detaining authority, which is on non- existing grounds as approved by the Government, is vitiated and is liable to set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the detenu viz., Sri Kudupudi Venkata Rao @ Ramana, S/o. Rama Rao is set at liberty forthwith. ___________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date: 23-11-2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.No. 5300 of 2011 (Per AGRJ) Dt. 23.11.2011