Balina Satyanarayana, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2023 Latest Caselaw 2817 AP

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
                       &
 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

                 Writ Petition No.3550 of 2023

ORDER: (per Sri Justice D.V.S.S.Somayajulu)


     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Additional Advocate General.

2.   The essential issue raised by learned counsel for the

petitioner is that all the offences under which the petitioner

has accused are the offences under the Prohibition and

Excise Act. It is also pointed out that in view of the

judgment    of    the   Division   Bench   of   this   Court   in

W.P.No.5469 of 2022, the mere registration of crimes

under the provision of Prohibition and Excise Act are not

enough to invoke the provision of Preventive Detention Act.

It is also submitted that the existence of element of

disturbance of public order which is a sin qua non for

invoking the provision of Goonda Act is not present in this

case. Learned counsel also points out that the detained

authority nor the detaining authority mentioned why the

regular penal laws are not enough to deal with the cases

against the detenue. It is submitted that the invocation of
 the preventive detention is permissible only if the ordinary

penal laws are not enough and there is a necessity to keep

the detenue in detention in order to prevent him from

committing further crimes. It is stated that such findings

or conclusion is not visible from the record. It is pointed

out that cases were foisted on the detenue and that he was

not found in the spot in most of the cases.

3.   In reply to this, learned counsel for the respondents

argued at length and submits that all these factors are

taken into account before the impugned order is passed. It

is also stated that the issues raised in the writ petition

have been answered sufficiently and as far as the offences

under the prohibition act are concerned, it is submitted

that since the detenue is selling adulterated liquor which is

dangerous to the public and he is involved in series of

offences, the respondents have exercised their subjective

satisfaction based upon the material available. Hence it is

argued that the order of detention is correct as per law.

4. After the considering the submissions made, this

court notices that the essential fact remains that the

detenue is accused in the offences under the Prohibition and excise act only. It is also a fact that the petitioner was

enlarged on bail in most of the offences. It is clear from the

record that the element of satisfaction of disturbance to

public order which is held to be a sin qua non for invoking

the provision of Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh Prevention of

Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug

Offenderes, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-

Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986) is not present in this

case. Apart from the order in W.P.No.5469 of 2022, the

learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the order

passed in W.P.No.42567 of 2022. These orders apply to the

facts of the case.

5. In addition the reasons which are necessary to be

recorded are also not found in the orders impugned and no

conclusion is also reached why the ordinary penal law is

not enough to deal with the alleged offences, this Court has

to hold that the impugned order was passed without proper

application of mind and there are procedural violations. As

held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in more than one

decision, even one procedural violation can annulled to the

benefit of the detenue. Therefore, the detenue will not fall

under the category of Goonda Section 2(g) of the Act 1 of 1986. This Court could not find that the order of detention

has any material to either substantiate or justify the said

allegation that the detenue is a 'Bootlegger' whose activities

would be actually prejudicial to public order. For the

reasons recorded, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting

aside the order of detention passed by respondent No.2

vide proceedings in Roc.No.M1 (SEB.KORUKONDA)/

453845/2023 as confirmed by respondent No.1 in

G.O.Rt.No.561, General Administration (SC-I) Department,

dated 21.03.2023 and consequently, the detenue namely

Balina Suresh, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged 27 years, is

directed to be released forthwith by the respondents if the

detenue is not required in any other cases. There shall be

no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any,

pending shall also stand dismissed.

________________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

________________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI Date: 03.05.2023 Note: CC today B/o.

AG/ANS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

Writ Petition No.3550 of 2023

Dated: 03.05.2023 AG