SHAIK LAL BEE Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) The petitioner, one Smt. Shaik Lal Bee, has filed this writ petition seekingfor quashing of order of detention passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nalgonda dated 8-10-1997 under Section 3(2) 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'), as confirmed by the State of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Rt No. 6187, dated 3-12-1997, detaining the petitioner's son by name Shaik Khasim, son of Madar Sab on the ground that he acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the alleged detenu is a law abiding citizen and at no time he has committed any act which had disturbed the public order, and the cases which were filed against him ended in acquittal, and that the order of detention is made with a mala fide intention. The order of detention passed on irrelevant and stale grounds cannot be sustained. The cases referred to in the grounds, which were filed against the son of the petitioner, were in fact ended in acquittal and the same could not have been the basis for passing the detention order. The authorities failed to know the effect of acquittal in passing the detention order and to what extent the preventive detention law can be invoked in such circumstances. It is also contended that the order of detention is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, particularly the petitioner's son cannot be said as Goonda as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act warranting the circumstances to pass the detention order. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the order under challenge is the result of non-application of mind on the part of the authorities. The order of detention was made in order to subvert the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalgonda before whom the alleged detenu was the accused in Crime No. 60/97 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 I.P.C. r/w 149 I.P.C. on the file of Munagala Police Station, wherein the alleged detenu obtained bail. It is also contended that preventive detention is an extraordinary remedy and any order of detention passed should stand to reason and the absence of honest opinion formed by the Authorities concerned renders the order invalid. Sri Gopalakrishna Tamada, learned Counsel for the petitioner, lastly submits that the order of detention is bad and since the detenu was illegally detained he is entitled for payment of compensation. To support his contention, he placed reliajice on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rudul Sah vs. State of Bihar and Bhim Singh vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir.