THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.1785 of 2010 Date: 29.03.2010 Between : Yevvakula Pedakapu … Petitioner and The Collector and District Magistrate, Kakinada, East Godavari District and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.1785 of 2010 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard Sri T.S.N.Murthy, 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 sister’s son viz., Sri Gandham Durga Rao, s/o. Chandra Rao, aged about 22 years, resident of Krishnuni Palem, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, who is now detained in Central Prison, Rajahmundry, pursuant to the detention order, dated 13.8.2009, in proceedings Rc.No.175/2009/A4, passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada, the 1st respondent herein, and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent-Government, before this Court and to release him, forthwith. 3. The sister’s son of the petitioner herein (for brevity “the detenu”) 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 1st 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 13.8.2009, and eventually the Government i.e., the 2nd respondent had passed final order in G.O.Rt.No.4658, General Administration (Law & Order.II) Department, dated 24.9.2009, 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., 13.8.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking production of the detenu and to release him, forthwith. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent had passed the order of detention without application of mind and that the detenu was not supplied with all the relevant material regarding the grounds on which the order of detention was passed and there is no proximity between the dates of offence and the order of detention 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 1st respondent narrating the incidents in which the detenu was involved viz., (1) Crime No.794/07-08, dated 13.2.2008 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Korukonda, wherein the detenu was found to have been in possession of 5 liters of I.D. liquor and the same was seized and sent for chemical analysis; (2) Crime No.324/08-09, dated 4.12.2008 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Korukonda; wherein the detenu was found in possession of 20 liters of I.D. liquor and the same was seized and sent for the chemical analysis; and (3) Crime No.399/08-09, dated 5.1.2009 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Korukonda, wherein the detenu was found to have been in possession of 5 liters of I.D. liquor and the same was seized and sent for chemical analysis. In all the cases the chemical analysis report was that the samples drawn were found to be unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Therefore, taking into account the above crimes, the competent authority had passed the order of detention dated 13.8.2009. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that (i) the detenu was acquitted in all the above three cases, therefore, passing of the order of detention basing on the said crimes is unwarranted; (ii) the relevant papers have not been supplied to the detenu; and (iii) there is no proximity between the dates of the crimes mentioned and the date of passing the order of detention. Therefore, he sought to set aside the order of detention passed against the detenu. 7. Admittedly, three instances have been taken into consideration by the detaining authority for passing the order of detention. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the detenu was acquitted in all the three cases, the order of detention cannot be passed basing on the said crimes, cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as it is settled law that the trial of a person in criminal cases and release on bail need not necessarily be a ground for not exercising the jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act. In other words, the standards of adjudication in criminal trial and the order of detention in cases of the present nature are totally different. The order of detention as postulated under the provisions of the Act would be passed for prevention of certain offences against the society. 8. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detenu was not supplied the relevant papers is concerned, it is to be seen that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that the entire material had been supplied to the detenu and the same was acknowledged by the detenu. From the record, it could be seen that the detenu had contributed his thumb impression to the effect that the material has been supplied to him and the same was in the language known to him i.e., telugu. Therefore, having regard to the statement made in the counter affidavit and also as could be seen from the record, the entire material had been supplied to the detenu before passing the order of detention. 9. The third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no proximity between the dates of offences and the order of detention passed by the competent authority is concerned, it is to be seen that though the first two offences were found to have taken place in the year 2008, the third offence has taken place in January, 2009 and the order of detention was passed within a reasonable period i.e., in the month of August, 2009. The settled law is that when the last incident that had taken place, which was the basis for initiating action against the persons like the detenu, if found proximate to the date of passing of the order of detention, the other incidents, though appear to be remote, can be tagged to the latest incident, which is proximate, and can be made the basis for passing the order of detention. Therefore, we reject this contention also. 10. Therefore, the detenu had been accorded all reasonable opportunity to make an effective representation as contemplated under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. In fact, it is not the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that because of the above lapses, the detenu had been deprived of the opportunity of making effective representation. After careful consideration of the entire material placed before it only the competent authority i.e., the 1st respondent had passed the order of detention and the same had been confirmed by the 2nd respondent. 11. 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 1st respondent and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. 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 RAJA ELANGO 29.03.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.1785 of 2010 29.03.2010 (Msr)