V. MURAGESH Vs. COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who claims to be the son of the detenu, namely Vepagunta Nagaiah, who is now detained in Central Prison, Cherlapally, has filed this writ petition praying the Court to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

(2.) THE Divisional Forest Officer, Wild Life Management Division, Tiruputi, informed respondent No.1, namely the Collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor (hereinafter referred to as 'the Detaining Authority') that the detenu since last seven years has been committing forest offences, namely illicit felling of red sanders, smuggling them to secret and unknown places in India and abroad. He is involved in eight forest offences, namely in O.R. Nos. 177/2010-11, dated 14.02.2010; 126/2009-10, dated 26.02.2010; 217/2010-11, dated 31.03.2010 and 20/2012-13, dated 20.04.2012 of Flying Squad Division, Tirupati - O.R. Nos. 17/2011-12, dated 25.04.2010; 26/2011-12, dated 02.05.2011; 108/2011-12, dated 05.10.2011 and 249/2011-12, dated 24.03.2011 of S.V. National Park Range, Wild Life Management, Tirupati. The said cases were registered against the detenu for the offences punishable under Sections 20, 29 and 44 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and Rule 3 of the A.P. Sandal Wood and Red Sander Wood Transit Rules, 1969 and the provisions of Sections 378 and 379 I.P.C. While the said cases are pending trial, considering the fact that the illegal activities of the detenu, is resulting in willful destruction of red sanders trees, which is an endangered species; damage to public property, resulting in depletion of green cover and loss of national wealth; prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; disturbing the peace, tranquility and social harmony in the society, and as the forest laws and ordinary law under which the detenu is being prosecuted are not sufficient in the ordinary course to deal with him firmly, respondent No.1-Detaining Authority') in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 3(1) and (2) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbing Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Preventive Detention Act'), with a view to prevent the detenu from commission of similar such activities, which is resulting in plundering of national wealth, vide order dated 28.05.2012, ordered the detention of the detenu in prison. Pursuant to the said order of detention, the detenu was lodged in Central Prison, Cherlapally. The said order of detention, passed by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, was confirmed by respondent No.2, namely the Government, by orders issued in G.O. Rt. No. 2950, General Administration (Law and Order - II) Department, dated 26.06.2012. Hence, questioning the said order of detention, passed by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, for detention of the detenu in prison, as confirmed by respondent No.2-Government, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents, respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, namely the Collector and District Magistrate filed counter. The learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General for the respondents, reiterating the stand taken by the respondents in their counter submitted that the detenu is habitually indulging in illicit felling of red sanders trees by trespassing into forest area, smuggling and transporting them out of the reserved forest owned by the State. Further, his activities are dangerous to the rare species of red sanders; resulting in damage to the pristine forest wealth; prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. For such of his illegal activities, the detenu is punishable under the provisions of the A.P. Forest Act and the Rules made thereunder and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The detenu has committed as many as eight offences in a span of two years, and as the ordinary laws under which he is being prosecuted are not sufficient to deal with his activities, respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, with a view to prevent the detenu from indulging in commission of similar such crimes, has passed the order of detention by invoking the Preventive Detention Law, which was approved by respondent No.2-the Government. Even though he admitted that the bail applications filed by the detenu and the bail orders granted to the detenu in the five cases were not placed before respondent No.1- Detaining Authority, but contended that since respondent No.1-Detaining Authority in the order of detention, had noted that the detenu was arrested in five cases and was released on bail, it cannot be said that he has passed the order of detention without application of mind or it suffers from his subjective satisfaction.