AZAM ALI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce his son namely, Mohammed Bin Ahmed s/o Azam Ali before this court and consequently set him at liberty forthwith by declaring the detention order as illegal.

(2.) On 27-9-1991 the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad city, 2nd respondent herein, passed an order under sub-sec. (2) of S. 3 of Act 30/84 read with G.O.Rt. No. 1572 General Administration (Genl. A) Department dated 4-4-1991 directing that the detenu shall be detained under the said Act 30/84 and lodged in the Central Prison, Chanchalaguda, Hyderabad for a period of four weeks from the date of execution of the order. The grounds of the detention in support of the said order were supplied to him on 28-9-91. On 4-10-1991 the petitioner challenged the validity of the said order by filing a habeas corpus writ petition in W.P. No. 12979/91. On 9-10-1991 the Government of A.P., first respondent herein, approved the order passed by the 2nd respondent. On 15-10-1991 the detenu was produced before the Advisory Board. On 22-10-1991 the first respondent issued G.O.Rt. No. 4892 confirming the order of detention. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner (W.P. No. 12979/91) was dismissed by this court on 24-10-1991. However, on 24-10-1991 the Government extended the period of detention for a period of six months from the date of detention i.e. 28-9-1991 by an order issued in G.O.Rt. No. 4945. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on 31-10-1991 challenging the validity of the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent and confirmation of the same by the first respondent in the above G.O.Rt. No. 4892.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds of detention do not disclose any offence u/S. 153-A, IPC; the satisfaction recorded by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner is a communal offender is wholly without application of mind and that the Act itself does not apply, therefore the detention order is liable to be quashed. He further submits that the 2nd respondent relied upon non-existing grounds in passing the order of detention against the petitioner. He also submits that at the time when the order of detention was extended, fresh grounds should exist and fresh satisfaction should be recorded, otherwise the extension order would be bad in law.