SHAIK SUBBALAKSHMI Vs. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, is filed to issue a writ of habeas corpus, directing the respondents to produce shaik Sreenu, son of Yellaiah, who is detained in Central Prison, Warangal, before this Court, and to release him forthwith after declaring his detention as illegal and void

(2.) THE brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this writ petition may be stated as follows. The petitioner herein is wife of Shaik sreenu (hereinafter called as 'the detenu'), who is lodged in Central Prison, Warangal. By order dated 18. 3. 2008, which was subsequently amended on 19. 3. 2008, passed under Sections 3 (1) and (2) read with section 2 (a) and (b) of the A. P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act, 1986'), the first respondent ordered detention of the detenu on the ground that he was constantly indulging in bootlegging activities and his acts were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order through dangerous activities in connection with possession, sale and transportation of I. D. liquor, which are prohibited as per the provisions of the A. P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and A. P. Excise Act, 1968. The said order was approved by the government in G. O. Rt. No. 1879, dated 27. 3. 2008 and the same was forwarded to the Advisory Board for review. The Board, having heard the detenu and the Investigating oifficers, opined that there was sufficient cause for detention of the detenu, and so confirmed the detention order, vide G. O. Rt. No. 2235, dated 15. 4. 2008, with a direction to detain the detenu for a period of 12 months from the date of his detention. The said order of detention is now challenged on the ground that it is passed without application of mind on vague, irrelevant and non-existent grounds which resulted in violation of the provisions of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the acts alleged against the detenu do not show that he was acting in the manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, or that the acts do not in any manner affect the public order; that the order passed by the first respondent is without application of mind; that there was no mention in the impugned order with regard to grant of bail, which amounts to denial of right of detenu to make effective representation; that the reports of Chemical Examiner do not show that the I. D. liquor contained any harmful substance. Hence, he prayed to issue a writ of habeas corpus to produce and release the detenu.