PAMULA PITCHAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus, in relation to an order of detention, dated 17. 12. 2007, passed by the 2nd respondent and approved by the 1st respondent vide their orders in G. O. Rt. No. 297, General Administration (Law and order-II) Department, dated 17. 01. 2008, in respect of Pamula Srinu, son of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner and his son, the detenue, are eking out their livelihood by cultivating small extents of land in Ramalaxmipuram Village, Kodad Mandal, nalgonda District. The order of detention was passed by the 2nd respondent in exercise of powers under Section 3 (1) and (2) read with Section 2 (a) and (b) of the andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'), alleging that the detenue was indulging in the activities of boot legging and manufacture and supply of illicit liquor. The order of detention is assailed on several grounds. It is pleaded that several irrelevant considerations were taken into account, while passing the impugned order. It is alleged that though as many as six cases filed against the detenue were referred to in the order of detention, only three cases constituted the basis of grounds. Another contention advanced by the petitioner is that the allegations against the detenue, in the cases mentioned in the order of detention, are trivial in nature and all the cases are spread over a period of about six months. It is further contended that ever since the detenue was released on bail by a criminal court, no fresh acts were noticed and in that view of the matter, there is no basis for the order of detention.

(3.) THE 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit. He stated inter alia that though reference is made to six criminal cases, only those mentioned in the grounds of detention, constituted the basis, and the others were referred to, in the context of the criminal background of the detenue. It is urged that the material recovered from the detenue, such as F. J. Wash and illicit liquor, were found on chemical analysis to be injurious to health. It is also urged that the steps taken by the State, in accordance with the ordinary provisions of law, did not have the desired effect and that the order of detention was passed in the public interest.