EASLEWALA MUMTAZ Vs. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Easlewela Mumtaz challenging the order of detention dated 08. 04. 2009 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy-1st respondent detaining easlewela Laxminarayana S/o. Kanjarlu on the ground that he is a bootlegger within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act No. 1 of 1986) (for short, 'the Act'), and consequential order of approval passed by the Advisory Board and confirmation by the Government vide G. O. Rt. No. 2060 General Administration (Law and Order. II)Department, dated 01. 05. 2009.

(2.) THE detaining authority i. e. , Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy-1st respondent has referred four incidents to categorize the detenue as a bootlegger as defined under section 3 (1) r/w. 2 (a) and (b) of the Act.

(3.) THE grounds of detention, in brief, are: On 07. 05. 2008 the Prohibition and excise Sub-Inspector of Prohibition and Excise Station, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy district, seized 130 illicit distilled liquor sachets from the possession of k. Yadagiri and arrested him. On enquiry, the said Yadagiri revealed the name of the detenue as the person who supplied the illicit distilled liquor sachets to him. Police arrested the detenue on 07. 05. 2009 and produced before the Special judicial Magistrate of First Class for Proh. and Excise-cum-XII Metropolitan magistrate at L. B. Nagar, Rangareddy District. Subsequently, the detenue came to be released on bail on 09. 05. 2008. The sample collected from the illicit distilled liquor sachets came to be sent for analysis. The Government Chemical examiner tested the sample and opined that the sample is illicit distilled liquor and unfit for potable purpose. On 19. 06. 2008, the Prohibition and Excise sub-Inspector of Prohibition and Excise Station, Balanagar, Rangareddy District, arrested the detenue and seized 416 illicit distilled liquor sachets. Sample collected from the said sachets came to be sent for chemical analysis. The government Chemical Examiner of Prohibition and Excise, Regional Prohibition and excise Laboratory, Hyderabad submitted his report opining that the sample is illicit distilled liquor unfit for potable purpose. Subsequently, the detenue came to be released on bail on 28. 06. 2008. On 13. 10. 2008, the Prohibition and excise Sub-Inspector of Prohibition and Excise Station, Balanagar, Rangareddy district, conducted route march and found Takur Pavan Kumar S/o. T. Raj Kumar and siddu Sing S/o. Subash Singh in possession of 100 litres of illicit distilled liquor. They stated to have told the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector the source of securing I. D. liquor was from the detenue. The detenue came to be arrested and sent for judicial custody. Subsequently, he came out on bail on 19. 11. 2008. The sample collected from the I. D. liquor was sent for chemical analysis and the report reveals that the sample is illicit distilled liquor unfit for potable purpose. On 23. 11. 2008 the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Enforcement Party, Rangareddy Zone surprised the premises bearing h. No. 11-82 owned by E. Laxmikanth, Parthiwada, Fathenagar of Balanagar and seized 1400 I. D. liquor sachets in seven plastic bags. The said E. Laxmikanth stated to have revealed the name of the detenue as the person who supplied the illicit distilled liquor. The detenue surrendered before the Spl. Judicial Magistrate of first Class for Proh. and Excise-cum-XII Metropolitan Magistrate at L. B. Nagar, rangareddy District on 02. 12. 2008. Thereafter he came out on bail on 02. 12. 2008. The sample collected from the I. D. liquor sachets came to be forwarded for chemical examination. The report of the Government Chemical Examiner revealed that the sample is illicit distilled liquor unfit for potable purpose. The collector and District Magistrate, Rangareddy District-1st respondent has referred these four incidents and came to the conclusion that the detenue comes within the meaning of the bootlegger as defined in Section 3 (1) r/w. 2 (a) and (b)of the Act and thereby proceeded to order for detention of the detenue under proceedings dated 08. 04. 2009. Subsequently, the order of detention came to be confirmed after perusing the report submitted by the Advisory Board. The government issued G. O. Rt. No. 2060 General Administration (Law and Order. II)Department, dated 01. 05. 2009 confirming the order of detention. Hence, the writ petition.