FATIMA MUNAWAR HUSSAIN Vs. GOVERMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 2.9.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, wherein the son of the petitioner by name Khalid Munawar @ Stick Baba @ Baba was detained in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act').

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that on 1.9.2003 the Inspector of Task Force, South Zone, Hyderabad along with his constables forcibly entered into the house of the petitioner and took away her son. It is alleged that the said Inspector of Police is the maternal uncle of one Mannan Gouri and due to personal grudge, the son of the petitioner was kept in illegal detention in Kalapather Police Station. It is stated that when the petitioner made enquiries about her son and went to Kalapather Police Station, the next day, she was informed that her son was sent to Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad, in pursuance of the impugned order of detention dated 2.9.2003.

(3.) The petitioner initially filed W.P. No.19502 of 2003 on 15.9.2003 challenging the impugned order of detention dated 2.9.2003. The case of the petitioner was that though a rowdy-sheet was pending against her son (hereinafter referred to as the detenu), on the basis of the grounds of detention, he could not be termed as "Goonda" as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act. It was further contended that the impugned order of detention was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act and that there was absolutely no material before the detaining authority for arriving at a conclusion that an issue of public order is involved. It is also contended that the impugned order of detention on the solitary stale incident cited in the order of detention i.e., involvement of the detenu in Cr.No.77 of 2003 of Bahadurpura Police Station is not sustainable and at any rate even the alleged offences which led to registering Cr.No.77 of 2003 are all bailable offences and do not attract the provisions of the Act. Yet, another contention raised was that the grounds of detention communicated were not in the language known to the detenu and that the documents upon which reliance was placed by the detaining authority were not communicated to him. Thus, according to the petitioner, the order of detention was in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and liable to be set aside.