THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 20235 of 2011 DT. 10.10.2011 Between: K Bharath … Petitioner And The Collector and District Magistrate and ors … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava Counsel for respondents: The Advocate General The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 20235 of 2011 JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Justice V Eswaraiah) The petitioner herein is a friend of the alleged detenue Sri Satish Singh. He has filed the present writ of Hebeas Corpus seeking to issue a direction to the respondents to produce Sri Satish Singh S/o Dharam Singh, said to be presently detained in Central Prison, Cherlapally, Hyderabad and to release him forthwith. 2. The alleged detenue/Sri Satish Singh was detained pursuant to the preventive detention order passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad district in proceedings RC.No. C1/9322/2010 dated 18.11.2010 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offeners, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short referred to as the Act, 1986). The said order was passed on the ground that the alleged detenue involved in dangerous activities connected with possession, transportation and sale of illicitly distilled liquor in contravention of the A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act, 1955 prejudicial to the public order as defined under Section 2 (b) of the Act and that the recourse to normal legal procedure would involve more time to be an effective deterrent to prevent him from indulging in further prejudicial activities. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the preventive detention order dated 18.11.2010 was passed on the ground that the alleged detenue involved in Crime Nos. 855/2010-11 dated 10.8.2010, 912/2010-11 dated 16.8.2010 and 1124/2010-11 dated 13.9.2010 all on the file of the Prohibition and Excise Station, Dhoolpet registered under Sections 7-A read with 8 (e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 respectively, that all the said three crimes were registered against the alleged detenue within a period of about a month in between 10.8.2010 to 13.9.2010 that there was a gap in between the occurrence of last incident and passing of the detention order and that the detention order, in fact, do not indicate that the alleged detenue indulged in activities prejudicial to the public order or activities affecting the public health or activities which caused injury to the public at large, that even if there was any injury it would be to only one or two individuals, that the number of sachets seized and their quantities are not noted and there is no proof of selling the sachets, that the ordinary penal laws are sufficient to deal with the individuals like the alleged detenue and that there is no need to invoke the provisions of the Act,1986 and detain him, in any case. 4. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent indicating the involvement of the alleged detenue in dangerous activities prejudicial to the public health and the procedure followed while passing the preventive detention order. 5. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the learned Advocate General and perused the entire material available on record. 6. It is seen that along with the detention order dated 18.11.2010 the alleged detenue was furnished with grounds of detention and the entire material relating thereto, whereby it is clear that the alleged detenue was involved in three Prohibition and Excise crimes referred to above. In the first crime in Crime No.855/2010 dated 10.8.2010 the alleged detenue is said to have been caught red-handed and on search found in possession of 250 illicitly distilled liquor sachets each containing about 100 ml and he was arrested and the illicit distilled liquor was seized and samples of the same were obtained and was sent for remand and a sample was sent for chemical examination to the Government Chemical Examiner of Prohibition & Excise, Regional Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Hyderabad, who on examination of the same, vide report in C.E. No. 4812/2010/12 dated 17.8.2010 in Serial No. 13867 opined that the subject sample was illicitly distilled liquor unfit for potable purpose. In the second crime in Crime No. 912/2010-11 dated 16.8.2010 on search, the alleged detenue issued to be found in possession of a bag containing 190 illicitly distilled liquor sachets and he was arrested and the illicitly distilled liquor was seized in presence of panchas and samples of the same were obtained and sent for chemical examination to the Government Chemical Examiner of Prohibition & Excise, Regional Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Hyderabad, who on the examination of the same, vide report in C.E. No. 5091/2010/13 dated 26.8.2010 in Serial No. 14427 opined that the sample was illicitly distilled liquor unfit for potable purpose. In the third case also in Crime No. 1124/2010-11 dated 13.9.2010 he is said to be caught red-handed and found in possession of 213 illicitly distilled liquor sachets and the same were seized obtaining samples and a sample was sent for chemical examination and on analysis it was found that the same was illicitly distilled liquor unfit for potable purpose vide report in C.E. No. 5610/2010/20 dated 23.9.2010 7. Therefore in all the three cases, the petitioner is said to have been caught red-handedly being in possession of the sachets whereas on chemical analysis found that the samples sent were illicitly distilled liquor unfit for potable purpose. In such circumstances, the competent authority/District Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad, having been satisfied that the alleged detenue should be prevented from further indulging himself in similar offences in future, passed the detention order on 18.11.2010 and thereupon on 20.11.2010 the alleged detenue was taken into custody and furnished with the order of detention informing the grounds of detention and material relied upon and also informing that he got right to make necessary representation to the Detaining Authority/Chief Secretary to the Government and Advisory Board. The order of detention was approved by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No. 5726 General Administration (Law & Order.II) Department dated 25.11.2010 and the same was placed before the Advisory Board, in its meeting held on 6.12.2010 and the Advisory Board, after hearing the detenue and the investigating officer opined that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the alleged detenue Satish Singh and basing on the recommendations of the Advisory Board, the Government issued G.O.Rt No. 5940 General Administration (L & O.II) Department dated 9.12.2010 confirming the order of detention for a period of 12 months from the date of detention i.e., 20.11.2010. 8. Having regard to the above noted facts and circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the material supplied to the alleged detenue, the number of sachets and its quantity were not mentioned in the grounds of detention etc is incorrect and the same cannot be accepted. Further, in the Crime and Occurrence Report in all the three cases, in column no.10, the illicitly distilled liquor found in possession of the alleged detenue was clearly mentioned as 250 ID liquor sachets each of 100 Ml in the first case, 190 ID liquor sachets each of 100 Ml in the second case and 213 ID liquor sachets each of 100 Ml in the third case. The samples drawn from the seized sachets in all the three cases were sent for chemical analysis, wherein the samples were found to be illicitly distilled liquor unfit for potable purpose. Therefore, it cannot be said that the activities of the alleged detenue in indulging in the activities of possessing the illicitly distilled liquor which is unfit for potable purpose meant for sale for human consumption is not prejudicial to the public health. Admittedly, the illicitly distilled liquor is injurious to public health and manufacture, possession, transportation and sale of the same are prohibited and registering of successive cases against the alleged detenue under A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 shows that it does not prevent him from repeatedly indulging in such acts, as such his prevention is warranted. Admittedly, in terms of the provisions of Excise Act, manufacture, possession, transportation and sale of such illicitly distilled liquor are prohibited and in view of the successive contravention and indulgence in such activities, the impugned prevention order was passed. 9. Having heard the counsel on either side and on the perusal of the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the District Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad having satisfied that the alleged detenue should be prevented from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 (2) of the Act, 1986 passed the impugned detention order, which was approved by the Government under Section 3 (3) of the Act, 1986 vide G.O.Rt.No. 5726 dated 25.11.2010 which was confirmed by the Advisory Board vide G.O.Rt.No.5940 dated 9.12.2010. 10. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason warranting interference of this Court with the detention order dated 18.11.2010. The writ petition fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. _____________ V ESWARAIAH,J ________________________ G KRISHNA MONAH REDDY,J DATE: 10.10.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 20235 of 2011 DT.10.10.2011