Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nakka Suvarna, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 19 October, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010198332024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 979 of 2024
Between:
Nakka Suvarna ...Petitioner
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner :
Sri. D.Purnachandra Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents :
Learned Addl Advocate General (AP)
The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Harinath.N)
The writ petition is filed challenging the order of detention vide
Rc.No.MC1/3080/2023, dated 10.11.2023 issued by the 1st
respondent.
2. The petitioner is the wife of detenu who was detained vide order of
detention dated 10.11.2023. The 2nd respondent confirmed the
detention order and issued G.O.Rt.No.2261 General
//2//
RRR, J & HN,J
Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 17.11.2023. The detenu
was involved in the following 03 cases.
S.No. Crime No. Police Station Offences under Sections
1. Crime No.128 of Gooty Police Under Section 7(a) read
2022 Station with 8(e) of AP Prohibition
(Amendment) Act, 2020
2. Crime No.11 of Gooty Police Under Section 7(a) read
2023 Station with 8(e) of AP Prohibition
(Amendment) Act, 2020
3. Crime No.54 of Gooty Police Under Section 7(a) read
2023 Station with 8(e) of AP Prohibition
(Amendment) Act, 2020
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sponsoring
authority has suppressed the vital information to the detaining
authority. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner
was released on bail in all cases and that the bail orders were not
furnished to the 1st respondent.
4. It is also the contention of the petitioner that not forwarding the
bail orders to the 1st respondent has eclipsed the 1st respondent
from considering the facts and circumstances for grant of bail. It is
also submitted that there is a possibility for the respondents to
take a different view had the detaining authority furnished all
information without suppressing the relevant material.
5. There are no grounds for branding the detenu under the definition
of bootlegger as defined under Section 2(b) of the Andhra
Pradesh Prevention of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders,
//3//
RRR, J & HN,J
Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986
(herein after be referred as 'the Act').
6. The State in their counter has narrated the details of all cases
which were registered against the detenu. It is also submitted that
the detenu was involved in three cases during the years 2022 and
2023 and all those cases are related to AP Prohibition Act. The
detenu was indulging in possession, sale and transportation of
illicit distilled liquor in contravention of the AP Prohibition
(Amendment Act), 2020. It is also submitted that, the procedure
established under law was followed for passing the order of
detention and ample opportunity was granted to the detenu to
make a representation to the concerned authority and that the
detenu was also given an opportunity of personal hearing. It is
submitted that the illegal activities of the detenu are affecting the
public health and public order and that the detenu resorting to
bootlegging activities without any remotes have resulted in
passing the order of detention. The only option left with the law
enforcing agencies is to detain him by issuing the detention order,
which is completely in accordance with law.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
Judgment of the composite High Court at Hyderabad passed in
//4//
RRR, J & HN,J
the matter of Vasanthu Sumalatha Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh1, wherein, at paragraph 7, it was held as follows ;
"7. The Constitutional imperatives of Article 22(5), and the dual
obligation imposed on the authority making the order of preventive
detention, are twofold: (1) The detaining authority must, as soon as
may be, i.e. as soon as practicable, after the detention order is
passed, communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order
of detention has been made, and (2) the detaining authority must
afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of making the representation
against the order of detention, (M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India ;
Mangalbhai Motiram Patel v. State of Maharashtra ; Kamleshkumar
Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India ), i.e., to be furnished with sufficient
particulars to enable him to make a representation which, on being
considered, may obtain relief to him. The inclusion of an irrelevant or
non-existent ground, among other relevant grounds, is an
infringement of the first of the rights and the inclusion of an obscure
or vague ground, among other clear and definite grounds, is an
infringement of the second of the rights. In either case there is an
invasion of the constitutional rights of the detenu entitling him to
approach the Court for relief. The reason why the inclusion of even a
simple irrelevant or obscure ground, among several relevant and
clear grounds, is an invasion of the detenu's constitutional right is that
the Court is precluded from adjudicating upon the sufficiency of the
grounds, and it cannot substitute its objective decision for the
subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. (Mohd. Yousuf
Rather v. State of J&K".
8. The subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention
would depend on case to case basis. The authority passing the
order of detention has to ensure that the procedural safeguards
before passing the detention order ought to be followed
scrupulously.
9. Preventive detention is a method of deterring an antisocial
element from disturbing the peace and fabric of the society.
However, the extreme action on part of the State denying the
MANU/AP/0602/2015
//5//
RRR, J & HN,J
fundamental right in the form of detaining him for a considerable
period of time has to be exercised by following the necessary
safeguards. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the State
to ensure peace in the society and strive towards a crime free
society. The State has an equal responsibility of protecting the
citizens' fundamental rights. The antisocial elements definitely
infringe upon the fundamental rights of the citizens in the society
to a large extent.
10. It is the bounden duty of the detaining authority to ensure that they
consider the material available in detail and pass necessary
orders by incorporating the relevant aspects imposing the order of
detention. Non-furnishing of relevant material to the detaining
authority and issuance of the order of detention without
considering the relevant material has to be set aside as the same
is an arbitrary act on part of the state.
11. The order of detention which is under challenge in the writ petition
is evidently passed without considering the relevant material
which was not furnished to the detaining authority by the
concerned officer.
12. There is no justification for passing the order of detention except
for stating that the order of detention is passed to prevent the
detenue from indulging in bootlegging activities and save public
//6//
RRR, J & HN,J
from grave threat to their health. The detention order has to be set
aside. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Rekha Vs. State of Tamilnadu2 and Champion R. Sangma
Vs. State of Meghalaya and another3, the order of detention vide
proceedings Rc.No.MC1/3080/2023, dated 14.09.2023 issued by
the 1st respondent deserves to be set aside.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the
order of detention vide proceedings Rc.No.MC1/3080/2023, dated
10.11.2023 which was confirmed by the 2nd respondent vide
G.O.Rt.No.2261, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated
17.11.2023 is hereby set aside and consequently the detenu by
name Nakka Anjaneyulu, S/o.late Nakka Peddanna, aged 45
years, R/o.Gooty Mandal, Ananthapuramu District shall be set at
liberty, if he is not required in any other case. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this
writ petition shall stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
KGM
(2011) 5 SCC 244
3 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 3673 (S.C.)
