DODDI SHARADA Vs. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Earlier these two writ petitions were referred to Full Bench on a question as to whether District Magistrate should know the constituents of liquor seized or it would be sufficient for him to arrive at a subjective satisfaction to detain a person if Public Analyst reported that sample was not fit for human consumption. This question has been decided and the writ petitions on this question have been dismissed, but since many other questions were raised by the petitioners to challenge the order of detention, for other questions these writ petitions have come before this Bench.

(3.) The detenus are detained by orders of detention passed by the District Magistrate 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"). It appears that liquor was seized from the detenus on various occasions and various cases were registered against them. Grounds of detention have been communicated to them. In W.P.No.19668 of 2004 instances of number of cases have been given which were registered against the detenu with regard to sale and distribution of ID liquor and samples drawn were found by the Public Analyst to be unfit for human consumption. Grounds 1 to 14 relate to the period from 16.8.2001 to 30.7.2004. Ground No.3 relates to a case registered on 3.10.2001 and the Ground No.4 relates to a case registered on 31.10.2002. That means there was a gap of almost a year between registration of these two cases. In addition to these grounds, the District Magistrate also stated in the grounds of detention: