LAWS(APH)-2012-6-50

MALIKIREDDY VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

Decided On June 29, 2012
MALIKIREDDY VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY S/O. M. RAMACHANDRA REDDY Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who claims to be the nephew of the detenu, namely Sri. Malikireddy Gangadhar Reddy, who is now detained in Central Jail, Kadapa, in pursuance of the order of detention dated 05.10.2011, passed by respondent No. 1, namely the Collector and District Magistrate, Kadapa, as confirmed by respondent No. 2, namely the Government, vide orders issued in G.O. Rt. No. 5147, dated 15.11.2011, has filed this writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, by declaring that the orders of detention are illegal and the detention of the detenu in pursuance thereof, is void and consequently to set him at liberty forthwith. Respondent No. 1, namely the District Collector and Magistrate, 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'), vide his order dated 05.10.2011, ordered the detention of the detenu in prison, on the ground that the detenu is involved in 18 cases relating to illicit cutting, storing and transportation of red sanders wood from the forests of the State, which he committed within a span of two and a half years, and that he being a habitual offender, has become a source of potential danger to the public well being and his illegal activities apart from causing damage to public property, resulting in tremendous loss to national wealth, depletion of green cover, are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and the forest laws under which he is charged are found not sufficient in ordinary course to deal with him firmly, and such, his detention to prevent the detenu from further indulging in boot legging activity, under the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act, is necessary. Thereafter, respondent No. 2, namely the Government, based on the report of the Advisory Board, and considering the activities of the detenu are not only corroding the rare species of pristine red sanders, but also leading to disturbance of peace, tranquility and public order, and as he has become a potential danger to the public at large, confirmed the order of detention passed by respondent No. 1 by issuing G.O. Rt. No. 5147, dated 15.11.2011. Questioning the said order of detention passed by respondent No. 1, as confirmed by respondent No. 2, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 1, while passing the order of detention under the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act, apart from taking into consideration 18 incidents, referred to in the grounds of detention, has also taken into consideration, two other incidents in Crime No. 9 of 1992 and Crime No. 20 of 1997, which are irrelevant. This apart, the said incidents being stale and old and having ended in acquittal of the detenu, are irrelevant to the order of detention. Therefore, the order of detention, passed by respondent No. 1, as confirmed by respondent No. 2, taking into consideration the said two old and stale incidents, which ended up in acquittal of the detenu, is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that ground No. 18, referred to in the grounds of detention, namely Crime No. 119/2011 of Lingala Police Station, registered against the detenu, relates to an offence punishable under Sections 25(1B)(A) of the Indian Arms Act, and the same is irrelevant to the passing of order of detention against the detenu. According to him, respondent No. 1 has passed the order of detention, terming the detenu as a "goonda". He drew our attention to the definition of the term "goonda" as defined in Section 2(g) of the Preventive Detention Act, and submitted that a person who commits or attempts or abets commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code, alone is treated as a "goonda". Since committing or attempting or abetting the commission of offences punishable under the Indian Arms Act, are not covered within the definition of the term "goonda" as defined in Section 2(g) of the Preventive Detention Act, he submitted that the order of detention, passed by respondent No. 1, as confirmed by respondent No. 2, is liable to be set aside, because it is passed taking into consideration an irrelevant ground. The learned counsel in support of his argument, that if one of the grounds mentioned in the order of detention is irrelevant, then such order of detention cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside, placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M.M. Mehta, 1995 3 SCC 237and of this Court in Mohammed Fayaz Ali @ Fayaz v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2009 3 ALT 668