SAMSHUL HASAN, S/O LATE MUNNA KHAN, BUSINESS, 45 YEARS, R/O B Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (LAW & ORDER) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD, AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby quashing detention order dated 08-08-2016 passed by respondent No. 2, as confirmed by respondent No. 1 on 27-09-2016, and consequently, direct respondent No. 3 to forthwith release Hussain Bhai @ Hasan Bhai @ Badrul Hasan @ Delhi Gaddam Saheb @ Pappu (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu').

(2.) In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu, in support of the petition, it is stated that on 08-08-2016, respondent No. 2 vide Ref.C1/533/M/2016 passed an order of detention against the detenu under Sections 3 (1) and 3 (2) 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').

(3.) Sri L. Ravichander, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the detention order suffers from several legal infirmities and it is liable to be set aside. He submits that in the grounds of detention served on the detenu referred seven cases while passing the order of detention by the detaining authority. Reading of grounds of detention and perusal of documents relied upon by the detaining authority would make it clear that the order of detention was passed mechanically without application of mind on vague, irrelevant and non-existing grounds and there is no material placed for subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority which has curtailed the fundamental rights of the detenu by placing him under preventive detention. The detaining authority arrived at a subjective satisfaction basing upon the seven crimes registered against the detenu on the ground that his activities are disturbing public peace and law and order problem as well. It is not in dispute that the detaining authority can invoke the provisions of the preventive detention to pass the order against the detenu if and only if the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. However, Law and order problem cannot be taken care under the preventive law. The detaining authority traveled beyond the scope of the Act and passed the detention order referring to the material which cannot form part of the detention order under the Act.