LAWS(APH)-2024-1-72

TAMIL SELVI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On January 23, 2024
TAMIL SELVI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the detention of her husband M. Saravana under detention order in REV-CSECOPDL(PRC)/6/2023- MAGL4, dtd. 13/9/2023 passed by 2nd respondent- Collector & District Magistrate, Chittoor District and confirmed by the 1st respondent as per G.O.Rt.No.2119, General Administration (SPL [LAW AND ORDER]) Department, dtd. 30/10/2023 and prays to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.

(2.) As per the proceedings dtd. 13/9/2023, the 2nd respondent passed the detention order under Sec. 3(1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (1 of 1986) [for short, 'the Act 1 of 1986'] treating the detenue as 'Goonda' under Sec. 2(g) of the Act 1 of 1986 on the subjective satisfaction that the detenue is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order since he has been habitually involved in notorious criminal activities with other associates and even though a number of cases were registered against him, he did not change his attitude and increasing his activities day to day and extending them to Andhra Pradesh and Telangana States. Following 5 cases in which the detenue was involved were taken as ground for ordering his detention.

(3.) In the writ petition and reply affidavit, the detention is challenged on two main grounds. The detenue was a Tamilian who was born and brought up in the State of Tamilnadu and that he can speak, write and understand only in Tamil language. However, strangely the detaining authority has supplied the detention material in Telugu and English languages instead of his mother tongue Tamil and thereby detenue could not make an effective representation to the Government and the Advisory Board and therefore he was severely prejudiced. The detention order, for this gross violation became illegal and unsustainable.