Vadde Savithri vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2971 AP

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
                                  AND

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

                     I.A.NO.1 OF 2013 IN/AND
                WRIT PETITION No.42115 of 2022

ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice V.Srinivas)

        Initially, in this writ petition, the petitioner is challenged

the order of detention of her husband Vadde Ramanjaneyulu @

Anji,     S/o.Jammanna,        aged     40    years,     vide    REV-

CSECOPDL(PRC)/6/2022-SA(C1)-COLL                    KRNL,        dated

28.11.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent-The Collector & District

Magistrate, Kurnool District and prays to direct the respondent

authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.

2. Since the said detention order passed by the 2nd

respondent was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide

G.O.Rt.No.180, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated

27.01.2023, then the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 to amend

the prayer of the writ petition as 'to issue writ order or direction

more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the 4th

respondent to produce the detenue viz., Vadde Ramanjaneyulu @

Anji, S/o.Jammanna, who is now detained in Central Prison,

Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District before this Court and order for his

release forthwith, after declaring his detention vide proceedings

REV-CSECOPDL(PRC)/6/2022-SA(C1)-COLL KRNL, dated

28.11.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed

by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.180, General

Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 27.01.2023 as illegal

and unconstitutional and pass such other order or orders which

this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances

of the case'.

3. In view of the same, I.A.No.1 of 2023 is allowed and the

prayer of the writ petition is ordered to be amended as prayed for.

4. The Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool District,

while categorizing the detenue as "Goonda" within the definition

of Section 2(g) 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 1 of

1986') and passed the impugned order of detention. The same

was confirmed by the 1st respondent-State.

5. Heard Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Sri Syed Khader Mastan, learned counsel attached to the office of

learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of ten

cases registered against the detenue, three cases ended in

acquittal after full-fledged trial, which include offenses under

Section 302 r/w.34 of IPC and Arms Act and two cases were

treated as false; that the penal laws as sufficient to deal with the

situation; that invoking the provisions of preventive detention is

completely unnecessary; that passing of detention order without

specifying the period of detention invalid since sub-section 2 of

Section 3 mandates such period to be specified in the order of

detention; that the detention order passed against the detenue is

illegal and not maintainable. He relied upon judgments of this

Court in Mohammed Fayaz Ali v. The Chief Secretary,

Government of Andhra Pradesh1 and Shaik Mabb Bi v. The

State of Andhra Pradesh2 and argues that some of the grounds

are irrelevant and that being alleged involvement in the serious

offence cannot be a basis for satisfaction that the detenue is a

habitual offender.

7. On the other hand, reiterating the averments made in the

counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is submitted by Sri

Syed Khader Mastan, learned counsel attached to the office of

Additional Advocate General that having regard to the gravity of

the offences and the fact that the offences alleged against the

accused were committed in the broad daylight and after the

satisfaction by the competent authority, the detention orders

1 MANU/AP/0059/2009 2 MANU/AP/0482/2023

have been passed, thus the orders impugned in the Writ Petition

do not warrant any interference of this Court under Article 226

of the Constitution of India.

8. A perusal of the order dated 06.03.2023 passed by this

Court in W.P.No.30649 of 2022 clearly demonstrates that all the

issues that have been raised in the present Writ Petition were also

raised in the aforesaid Writ Petition and this Court discussed the

law laid down in Gattu Kavitha v. State of Telangana3 case

and Rushikesh Thanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharastra4 case

and Three Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court in Rekha

v. State of Tamilnadu5 case, in which the Apex Court held as

follows:

"The detaining authority was not even aware whether a bail application of the accused was pending when he passed the detention order, rather the detaining authority passed the detention order under the impression that no bail application of the accused was pending, but in similar cases bail had been granted by the courts. We have already stated above that no details of alleged similar cases have been given. Hence, the detention order in question cannot be sustained".

3 2017(1) ALD Crl.224 4 (2012) 2 SCC 72 5 2011 (5) SCC 244

9. After considering the above, W.P.No.30649 of 2022 was

allowed granting relief in favour of the petitioner therein. The

detaining authority has not considered the vital aspect that out

of ten cases, the detenue was acquitted in three cases and two

cases were treated as false. It is no doubt true that some of the

offences against the detenue are serious, but the fact remains

that in matter of personal liberty and preventive detention even

one flaw or mistake can vitiate the entire order as per the settled

law.

10. On perusal of the record, this Court notices that there is

absolutely no evidence/material available to show the activities

of the detenue is causing impact on the public order. In-order to

pass an order under Section 3 of the Act, the existence of the

element of disturbance to the public order is a sine qua non and

the said power is required to be exercised with lot of care, caution

and circumspection and the same cannot be exercised in a

routine and mechanical manner, same is decided in the case

referred to supra.

11. In Syed Sabeena v. The State of Telangana and others6

at Para No.17 it is held by the APEX Court that: "in any case, the

State is not without a remedy, as in case the detenue is much a

6 Crl.A.No.909 of 2022 (SLP(Crl).No.4283 of 2022) (Supreme Court of India)

menace to the society as is being alleged, then the prosecution

should seek for the cancellation of his bail and/or move an appeal

to the Higher Court. But definitely seeking shelter under the

preventive detention law is not the proper remedy under the facts

and circumstances of the case."

12. The further satisfaction that needs to be recorded that he

will commit further crimes is also not clear. It is not clear how

the authority came to the conclusion that the ordinary law is not

sufficient to stop the alleged crimes. This Court could not find

that the order of detention refers to clear material to either

substantiate or justify the said allegation that the detenue is a

'Goonda'.

13. For the aforesaid reasons and following the order dated

06.03.2023 in W.P.No.30649 of 2022 as well the case law referred

to supra, this Writ Petition is also allowed, setting aside the order

of detention passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in

REV-CSECOPDL(PRC)/6/2022-SA(C1)-COLL KRNL, dated

28.11.2022 as confirmed by the State Government vide

G.O.Rt.No.180 General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated

27.01.2023. Consequently, the detenue namely Vadde

Ramanjaneyulu @ Anji, S/o.Jammanna, is directed to be released

forthwith by the respondents if the detenue is not required in any

other cases. No order as to costs.

14. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 09.05.2023 Issue C.C. today B/o.

Krs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

I.A.NO.1 of 2023 IN/AND WRIT PETITION No.42115 of 2022

DATE: 09.05.2023

Krs