LAKSHMI Vs. GOV OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of writ petitions for Habeas Corpus are filed by the wives of the respective detenues in all these writ petitions seeking direction to produce their respective husbands by name Theerthan Kanaka Raju, Shaik Simpathi @ Chimpathi, Dhanababu Sivan Babu @ Siva, Shaik Simpathi Jakeer and Erangamreddy @ Iragamreddy Naga Dasthagiri Reddy, who are detained in the Central Prison pursuant to the impugned orders of the preventive detention passed by the detaining authority in all these matters under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land- Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") and to declare the detention orders passed in all the matters are illegal and unconstitutional and then to pass appropriate orders deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) As all the writ petitioners in this batch of writ petitions have common grievance, whereby they have challenged the legal validity of the preventive detention orders passed under Sec. 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act, which are confirmed by way of issuance of a G.O. by the Government, we have heard these matters together and they are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) The alleged detenues were involved in various crimes, which are enumerated in the impugned orders of preventive detention passed by the detaining authority. All of them were arrested in connection with the said crimes and they were remanded to judicial custody. While the crimes are pending investigation, the Superintendent of Police concerned, as sponsoring authority, has recommended, for passing an order of preventive detention against them, to the detaining authority, who is the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, who is competent to pass the said order of preventive detention under Sec. 3 of the Act. The F.I.Rs. relating to registration of crimes against them were forwarded to the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority. Considering the said request and the said material placed before him, the detaining authority has passed the impugned orders of preventive detention against the detenues on the ground that it is essential to pass the said orders of preventive detention against them to prevent them from committing similar nature of offences in future in the public interest, as their acts are prejudicial to the public order.