Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Mekala Puspha Reddy vs The State Of Ap on 12 May, 2023

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

                 WRIT PETITION No.40489 of 2022

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

      In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order

of   detention    of   her   husband   Mekala   Vamsidhar   Reddy,

S/o.C.Rami Reddy, C/o.M.Venkat Reddy, aged 32 years, vide

REV-MAGL-1/786/2022, dated 05.07.2022 passed by the 2nd

respondent-The Collector & District Magistrate, Tirupati District,

which was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.1782,

General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 26.08.2022 and

prays to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at

liberty forthwith.

2. The Collector and District Magistrate, Tirupati 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.

3. Heard Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Syed Khader Mastan, learned counsel attached

to the office of learned Additional Advocate General for the

respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order

of detention passed in a mechanical manner and non-existent

grounds; that basing on the three different cases registered

against the detenue, the impugned order is passed; that in all the

three cases initially the detenue was not shown as accused and

basing on the confession of other accused, he was falsely

implicated in cases under Section 457 and 380 of IPC; that there

is every possibility for him to obtain bail in the said cases, but

the said fact was suppressed by the sponsoring authority before

the detaining authority and due to non-furnishing of relevant

material, the detenue lost opportunity to submit an effective

representation before the concerned authorities. He also submits

that the penal laws are sufficient to deal with the situation and

that invoking the provisions of preventive detention is completely

unnecessary.

5. He further submits that the detaining authority did not

supply the material relied on by them within the stipulated period

of five days and only the order and grounds of detention along

with material supplied after about three weeks, but the

subsequent developments such as approval and confirmation of

the order of preventive detention were not even informed to the

detenue, thereby, it vitiates the entire order of preventive

detention.

6. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned

counsel for the writ petitioner that the issue in the present Writ

Petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in

W.P.No.30649 of 2022, dated 06.03.2023.

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, 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 Telangana1 case

and Rushikesh Thanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharastra2 case

1 2017(1) ALD Crl.224 2 (2012) 2 SCC 72

and three judge Bench judgment of Apex Court in Rekha v.

State of Tamilnadu3 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".

9. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Singla v.

Union of India and Others4, held at Para No.48 as follows :

48. As has been mentioned above, preventive detention laws in India are a colonial legacy, and as such, are extremely powerful laws that have the ability to confer arbitrary power to the state. In such a circumstance, where there is a possibility of an unfettered discretion of power by the Government, this Court must analyze cases arising from such laws with extreme caution and excruciating detail, to ensure that there are checks and balances on the power of the Government. Every procedural rigidity must be followed in entirety by the Government in cases of preventive

3 2011 (5) SCC 244 4 2023 SCC Online SC 374

detention, and every lapse in procedure must give rise to a benefit to the case of the detenue. The Courts, in circumstances of preventive detention, are conferred with the duty that has been given the utmost importance by the Constitution, which is the protection of individual and civil liberties. This act of protecting civil liberties, is not just the saving of rights of individuals in person and the society at large, but is also an act of preserving our Constitutional ethos, which is a product of a series of struggles against the arbitrary power of the British state.

10. After considering the law laid down above, W.P.No.30649

of 2022 was allowed granting relief in favour of the petitioner

therein. In the present case also the detaining authority has not

considered the vital aspect that the detenue was shown as

accused basing on the confession of other accused. Similarly, the

fact that the detenue was in judicial custody at the time of

passing detention order is not considered and no reasons are

assigned that he will commit further crimes. It is not clear how

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

sufficient to prevent the alleged crimes and that invoking

provisions of preventive detention is completely unnecessary as

settled by this Court in several judgments. Even in the judgment