THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.13076 of 2009 Date: 10.08.2009 Between : Pedamarthi Vasantha Kumari …. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its 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.13076 of 2009 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard Sri Palle Nageswara Rao, 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 petition is filed by the petitioner seeking production of her husband viz., Sri Pidamarthi Rambabu, s/o. Dada, aged about 35 years, resident of Kodad (V & M), Nalgonda District, who is detained in Central Prison, Warangal, pursuant to the impugned order of detention, dated 21.05.2009, in proceedings Cr.No.507/2009/C2, passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Nalgonda District, and the consequential orders passed by the first respondent in G.O.Rt.No.2613, General Administration (Law & Order-II) Department, dated 29.5.2009 and also G.O.Rt.No.2877, General Administration (Law & Order-II) Department, dated 12.6.2009, before this Court and release him along with the goods carriage vehicle bearing No.0770039, forthwith. 3. The husband 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, Nalgonda District, the second respondent herein, exercising the jurisdiction conferred under Section 3 (1) 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 21.5.2009, and eventually the Government i.e., the first respondent had passed final order vide G.O.Rt.No.2877, General Administration (Law & Order-II) Department, dated 12.6.2009, 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., 22.05.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking production of the alleged detenu and to release him along with the vehicle seized, forthwith. 4. From the impugned order of detention, dated 21.5.2009, it could be seen that, in all, seven instances have been mentioned for passing the impugned order of detention. However, the detaining authority had categorically stated that the first three instances are previous instances and the other four instances are latest instances. In other words, the detaining authority itself had not based the impugned order on the crimes mentioned in those three instances. Insofar as the other four instances, in the first instance i.e., Crime No.13/2008-09, dated 8.4.2008, the detenu was cited as A.2; in the second instance i.e., Crime No.76/2008-09, dated 30.4.2008, the detenu was cited as A.3; in the third instance i.e., Crime No.854/2008-09, dated 25.12.2008, the detenu was cited as A.3; and in the fourth instance i.e., Crime No.1132/2008-09, dated 24.3.2009, the detenu himself was found to have been in possession of 50 litres of illicit liquor. 5. From the above, it is obvious that though the earlier instances that had taken place quite some time back are only mentioned, the same were not based for passing the impugned order of detention. However, the other four instances as shown above alone were based for passing the impugned order of detention. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in the material supplied to the detenu as well as the detaining authority, the detenu was not shown as directly involved in any of the offences, which were registered against him. But the fact remains that in all the above four instances, the detenu was figured as an accused. 7. It is to be remembered that the provisions of the Act can be invoked to prevent the perpetrator of the offences in committing the offence any further when he was frequently found to be involved in committing such offences. Obviously, when the detenu was figured as an accused in all the above crimes, we have to necessarily hold that in order to prevent the detenu from committing the offences any further, the detaining authority had rightly exercised his jurisdiction under the Act and passed the impugned order of detention. 8. In view of the above, we are of the view that there is no illegality or irregularity to interfere with the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent and the consequential orders passed by the first respondent and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. 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.13076 of 2009 10.08.2009 (Msr)