COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Vs. C ANITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The State of Andhra Pradesh calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashing the order of detention dated 15.7.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City (in short the 'Commissioner') directing detention of Chinnaboina Shankar alias C. Shankar (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu'). The order of detention was passed in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act'). Wife of the detenu Smt. C. Anita filed a habeas corpus writ application before the Andhra Pradesh High Court questioning legality of the order of detention. The primary stand taken in the writ petition was that the alleged acts as highlighted in the grounds of detention by no stretch of imagination can be called to affect public tranquillity and/or be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It was submitted that the incidents to which reference was made in the grounds of detention allegedly took place long back and there was no live link to warrant the order of detention. The High Court held that though there was proximity with the incidents highlighted in the order of detention there was nothing to show that those acts were affecting maintenance of public order. It was further held that even if the detenu was held to be a goonda and land grabber that was not sufficient to warrant preventive detention. Accordingly the order of detention was quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court's approach is clearly erroneous. The grounds of detention not only referred to the two specific instances but also clearly indicated as to how nearly 30 cases were instituted against the detenu and the adverse effect of his activities which created a sense of terror affecting public tranquillity. Reference was made to paragraph 3 of the order of detention which according to learned counsel was sufficient to show as to in what manner the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.