THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.9515 of 2009 Date : 10.08.2009 Between : Marumukham Taraka Rama Rao … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Chief Secretary, General Administration (Law & Order.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.9515 of 2009 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner seeking production of his brother viz., Sri Marumukham Ravi Kumar, s/o. Satyanarayana, aged about 25 years, resident of Satellite City of Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, who is detained in Central Prison, Rajahmundry, pursuant to the detention order, dated 03.04.2009, in proceedings Rc.No.70/A4/2009, passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada, and the consequential order passed by the first respondent, before this Court and to release him, forthwith. 3. The brother of the petitioner was allegedly involved in trafficking of illicit liquor and taking into account of his frequent involvement in the said activity, the competent authority i.e., the Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District, the second respondent herein, exercising the jurisdiction 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 and Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for brevity “the Act”), passed the order of detention, dated 03.04.2009, and eventually the Government i.e., the first respondent had passed final order vide G.O.Rt.No.2091, General Administration (Law & Order.II) Department, dated 04.05.2009, confirming the order passed by the competent authority, and as a result of which the detenu was directed to be detained for a period of 12 (twelve) months from the date of his detention i.e., 03.04.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking production of the alleged detenu and to release him, forthwith. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent passed the order of detention without application of mind and that the detenu was not supplied with the necessary material regarding the grounds on which the order of detention was passed and as a consequence thereof, the detenu could not defend his case by making effective representation as postulated under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the order of detention suffers from illegality and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent narrating the incidents in which the detenu was involved viz., (1) Crime No.145/2007-08, dated 16.6.2007 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Rajahmundry South; (2) Crime No.315/2008-09, dated 26.12.2008 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Alamuru; (3) Crime No.318/2008-09, dated 28.12.2008 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Alamuru; and (4) Crime No.1438/2008-09, dated 26.2.2009 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Rajahmundry South, and the reasons for passing the order of detention. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Chemical Examiner’s report, which shows that the distilled liquor was unfit for human consumption and injurious to health, was not supplied to the detenu thereby causing prejudice in making effective representation and as such the order of detention is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that there is no proximity between the date of crime mentioned in instance No.1 and the date of passing the order of detention. 7. Admittedly, four instances have been taken into consideration by the detaining authority for passing the order of detention. In all the above cases, samples were collected and the Expert opined that the illicit liquor, which was seized, was unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and it appears that the entire material had been supplied to the detaining authority and the said material was based for passing the order of detention. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Chemical Examiner’s report was not supplied cannot be sustained. 8. Insofar as the other contention that there is no proximity between the date of first incident and the date of detention order, it is to be seen that the law is settled as per the decision of the apex Court in COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE v. SANGALA KONDAMMA[1] wherein it is held that it is sufficient if there is proximity between the date of the last incident among various other incidents, which were based for passing the order of detention, and the actual date of order of detention. 9. In view of the settled legal proposition, we are of the view that this contention on behalf of the petitioner is also not sustainable. After careful consideration of the entire material placed before it only the competent authority i.e., the 2nd respondent had passed the order of detention and the same had been confirmed by the first respondent. 10. In view of the above, we are of the view that there are no valid reasons for this Court to interfere with the order of detention passed by the second respondent and the consequential order passed by the first respondent and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. 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 R.KANTHA RAO 10.08.2009. Msr THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.9515 of 2009 10.08.2009 (Msr) [1] (2005) 3 SCC 666