P KRISHNAVENI Vs. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Collector and District Magistrate, Kadapa, the 1st respondent, passed an order dated 15-3-2004, directing detention of the husband of the petitioner, Sri Pasupuleti Mohan (for short 'the detenu'), under Section 3(1) and (2), read with Section 2(a) and 2(g) of 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'). The order was approved by the Government, the 2nd respondent, as required under sub- section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, through its order in GO. Rt No.1421, dated 23.3.2004. The detenu could not be apprehended after the order of detention was passed. W.P. No.8558 of 2004 was filed challenging the order of detention. It was dismissed on 18-11-2004. Thereafter, the detenu was surrendered on 30-11-2004. The representation made by him was placed before the Advisory Committee. The Committee submitted its report on 28-12-2004. On a consideration of the same, the 2nd respondent confirmed the order of detention, through G.O. Rt. No.14, dated 1-1-2005. The petitioner challenges the same by filing this writ of habeas corpus.

(2.) It is contended that the detenu cannot be treated as goonda, as defined under the Act, and that the order of detention was passed in a mechanical way, without application of mind in flagrant violation of the Constitution of India and the Act. Irrelevant and non-existent grounds are said to have been taken into account. It is urged that the instances alleged against the detenu, do not disclose any offence, punishable under Section 379 I.P.C.; that the offence under the Forest Laws cannot constitute the basis for detention, and that the fourth incident dated 1-3-2004, does not indicate any offence of theft. It is also pleaded that no crimes have been registered against the detenu, in any Police Station, with reference to the incidents alleged against him, and that the said incidents cannot be said to have affected the public order.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, the facts that led to the passing the order of detention are narrated. The detention is sought to be justified by stating that the detenu had resorted to several acts, namely, cutting and smuggling of rare and valuable timber, such as Red Sanders, constitute offence under Section 379 I.P.C., and in turn would affect public order.