SHAHAN Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The preventive detention of the husband of the petitioner, allegedly a hardcore red sander smuggler, is assailed in this Writ Petition.

(2.) Shorn of all unnecessary details, it will suffice to refer to the three contentions raised by the learned counsel for the detenu, viz ., (1) the detenu having studied up to IVth standard in Urdu medium, the respondents have not supplied the order of detention and the material in support thereof in the only language known to him, namely, Urdu; (2) that the impugned order of detention suffers from non-application of mind, in that a grossly incorrect statement has been made by respondent No.2 that in spite of registration of crimes and arrest, it is evident that the detenu is habituated in committing similar offences. As a matter of fact, the detenu was arrested on 110.2015 and he was never physically released thereafter before the impugned detention order was passed on 13.10.2016; and (3) that though the officers of the respondents have appeared before the Advisory Board, the detenu was denied the facility of engaging a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board and that therefore, the denial of the benefit of engaging a legal practitioner is contrary to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy Vs. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 271, which was followed in Choith Nanikram Harchandani Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2015 SCC Online SC 1356.

(3.) The learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh, appearing for the respondents, submitted that since the detenu was born and brought up in the State of Karnataka, he understands Kannada language and that the detention order and the relevant material was read over to him in Kannada. He has invited this Court's attention to para-21 of the counter-affidavit of respondent No.2.