ORDER (Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.) Heard Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the Advocate General. 2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce his brother by name A. Janakiraman (for short "the detenu") detained in the Central Prison, Cherlapally pursuant to order of detention Ref No.C2/10929/2012 dt. 02.01.2013 of the 2nd respondent under S. 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") as confirmed in G.O.Rt.No.573 General Administration (Law and Order. II) Department dt. 05.02.2013 of the its respondent in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of S.12 read with S.13 of the Act. 3. The petitioner is the brother of the detenu who is presently detained in the Central Prison, Cherlapalli. 4. By his proceedings dt. 02.01.2013, the 2nd respondent passed an order of detention u/S.3 of the Act on the ground that the detenu is a "goonda" as defined u/S.2(g) of the Act and with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner injurious to maintenance of public order and public health. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, submitted proposals dt.03-12-2012 to the 2nd respondent, reporting that a spate of illicit red-sanders felling and smuggling to Chennai and other unknown destinations had occurred in various Reserve Forest areas of Bhakarapet, Yerravaripalem, Nerabylu areas called as Seshachalem Ranges falling in the southern part of Eastern Ghats of area 4755.99 sq.km in Chittoor and Kadapa districts which had been designated by the Central Government as a Biosphere Reserve in the year 2010; further Government Forest areas of an extent 525.97 sq. km. around Thirumala Hills were declared as Sri Venkateshwara Wildlife Sanctuary which include an area declared as Sri Venkateshwara National Park; the detenu is one of the kingpins involved. in financing the illicit felling of red-sanders and also subsequent smuggling of the same to various places; six cases were registered against him for various offences under the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and under the Indian Penal Code, 1860; that the acts and crimes committed by the detenu come within the purview of the term "goonda"; and therefore the detenu is liable to be detained under the Act. 6. 6. The gist of the six cases referred to in the order of detention are as under : Sl. No. Case No. Date: Name of the Section/station Particulars of Seizure Involvement of detenu Provisions of Law invoked against the detenu 1. 2. 3. Crime No.50/2012, Dt.21-11-12 of Yerravaripalem PS, Chittoor Dist. Cr.No.227/2012, Dt.16-11-2012 of Piler PS, Chittoor District. Cr.No.147/2012, Dt.23-11-2012 of Nagari PS, Chittoor District 6 logs of Red sandal- wood total weighing about 183 kgs. 6 logs of Red sandal- wood total weighing about 136 kgs. 6 logs of Red sandal- wood total weighing about 66 1/2 kgs. A Janikiraman, is noted Janakiraman noted as A.5 in this case and he is in judicial custody of JFCM, Piler, having been concerned as accused A.6 in Cr.No.88/2012 of Bhakarapet PS. as A-3 in this case. A Janikiraman, is noted as A-4 in this case and he is in judicial custody of JFCM, Piler, having been concerned as accused A2 in Cr.No.88/ 2012 of Bhakarapet PS. U/s.20(1)(C)(ii)(iii)(iv) & (x) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and Sec. 29 of Wild Life Prevention Act, 1972 and Sec.55(2) of Biological Diverting Act, 2002 and 379 IPC of Yerravaripalem PS, Chittoor District. U/s.20 & 29 of A.P. Forest Act, 1967, Rule 3 of AP Sandalwood and Red Sandalwood Transit Rule, 1970, Sec. 29 of Wild Life Prevention Act, 1972, Sec. 55(2) of Biological Diverting Act, 2001 and Sec. 379 IPC of Piler PS, Chittoor District. U/s. 379 IPC, Sec.20 (1) (C) (3) (4) (X) and Rule 3 of AP Sandalwood and Red Sandalwood Transit Rule and Punishable and Sec. 29(4)(A.1) of AP Forest 3 Act of Nagari P.S. 4. 5. 6. Cr. No. 88/2012, Dt. 23-11-2012 of Bhakarapet PS, Chittoor Dist. OR No. 47/2012-13 Dt.15-7-2012 of Chamala Range. OR No. 48/2012- 13, Dt.16-7-2012 of Chamala Range 14 logs of Red sandal wood total weighing about 385 kgs. Particulars of Seizure 150 logs of Red sandal wood total weighing about 5017 kgs. 196 logs of Red sandal wood total weighing about 5512 kgs. A. Janikiraman, is noted as A-2 in this case and was arrested red handedly along with red sander stock and sent for remand to the court of JFCM, Piler B. Janakiraman is concern in this case. 196 logs of Red sandal wood total weighing about 5512 kgs. A. Janikiraman, is noted as A-2 in this case and was arrested red handedly along with red sander stock and sent for remand to the court of JFCM, Piler B. Janakiraman is concern in this case. B. Janakiraman is concern in this case U/s.20 of AP Forest Act, 1967, Rule 3 of AP Sandal-wood and Red Sandalwood Transit Rule, 1970, Sec. 29 of Wild Life Prevention Act, 1972, Sec. 55(2) of Biological Diverting Act, 2002, Sec. 353, 506 & 379 r/w 34 IPC of Bhakarapet P.S. U/s. 20(1) c (ii), (iii), (v) and (x) and Sec. 29, 29(4)(a)(i) of AP Forest Act, 1967, Rules 3 and 4 of AP Red Sanders and Sandalwood Transit Rules, 1969 and u/s. 29 and 51(1) of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and Sec. 378, 379 IPC, Secs.7, 55(2) and 58 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 of SV National Park, Chamala Range. U/s. 20(1) c (ii) (iii) (iv) and (x) and Sec.29 and 29(4)(a)(i) of AP Forest Act, 1967, Rules 3 and 4 of AP Red Sanders and Sandalwood Transit Rules, 1969 and Sec.29 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Ses.378 & 379 IPC and Secs.55(2) and 58 of Biological Diversity Act, 2002, of SV National Park, Chamala Range. 7. In the grounds of detention served on the detenu on 05.01.2013, the above details were furnished to the detenu. The material in support thereof was also served on the detenu. The detenu was informed that he has a right to make a representation to the detaining authority i.e. himself, the Advisory Board and the 1st respondent against his detention apart from a right to be heard personally by the Advisory Board if he is so desires under Section 10 of the Act. The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, was directed to take the detenu into custody and hand him over to the 3rd respondent immediately. The 1st respondent approved the said detention order under sub-section (3) of S. 3 of the Act vide G.O.Rt.No.182 General Administration (Law and Order.II) Department dt. 10.01.2013 and also referred the matter to the Advisory Board on Preventive Detentions. 8. The 1st respondent approved the said detention order under sub-section (3) of S. 3 of the Act vide G.O.Rt.No.182 General Administration (Law and Order.II) Department dt. 10.01.2013 and also referred the matter to the Advisory Board on Preventive Detentions. 8. The Advisory Board constituted under S. 9 of the Act reviewed the case of the detenu on 29.1.2013 and after hearing the detenu and the Investigating Officers and after perusing the connected records and his representation gave a report dt. 29.1.2013 that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. 9. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No. 573 General Administration (Law and Order.II) Department dt. 05.02.2013 confirmed the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent on 02.01.2013. In the said order, the 1st respondent concurred with the view of the 2nd respondent that the detenu, having been involved in 6 cases of illicit felling of Red Sander trees, cutting, storing, transportation and wilful destruction of the said trees, is damaging the national wealth; that he is a "goonda" as defined in S.2(g) of the Act; his activities are prejudicial to public order; and that he deserves maximum period of detention of 12 months from the date of his detention. 10. In the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu as stated above, the details of the six cases registered against him mentioned above were referred to. It is also stated that the detenu has been arrested in Cr. No. 88 of 2012 u/S. 20 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, Rule 3 of the A.P. Sandalwood and Red Sandalwood Transit Rule, 1970, S. 29 of the Wildlife Prevention Act, 1972, S. 55(2) of the Biological Diverting Act, 2002, S. 353, 506, 379 r/w. 34 I.P.C. of Bhakarapet P.S. by S.I. of Police, Bhakarapet P.S. on 23.11.2012 at 06:20 p.m. in the forest area in Bhakarapet, Chinnagottigallu Mandal, near B.V. Reddy Guest House and sent for remand to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Piler and is detained in Piler sub-jail. 11. The counsel for the petitioner contended that except in the case referred to at S1. No. 4 of the above table, in all other cases, the detenu was implicated on the confessions of the co-accused to the police which are inadmissible in evidence; he was arrested and taken into custody only in the case referred to at S1. 11. The counsel for the petitioner contended that except in the case referred to at S1. No. 4 of the above table, in all other cases, the detenu was implicated on the confessions of the co-accused to the police which are inadmissible in evidence; he was arrested and taken into custody only in the case referred to at S1. No. 4 of the above table; he was produced on prisoner transit warrant in the cases referred to in S1. Nos. 1 to 3 of the above table; he was not even arrested in the cases mentioned at S1. Nos. 5 and 6 of the above table; the offences alleged against him come under the penal statutes such as the Forest Laws and cannot be said to affect the public order; that the detenu was granted conditional bail on 13.12.2012 in Crl. M.P. No. 3100 of 2012, 3062 of 2012, 3058 of 2012 in the cases mentioned at S1. No. 1, 2 and 4 of the above table and on 12.12.2012 in Crl. M.P. No. 2623 of 2012, in the case mentioned at SI. No. 3; the sponsoring authority did not place this material before the detaining authority and this vitiates the order of detention; the detaining authority did not consider whether there was any possibility for the detenu being released while in custody in all the crimes on which the grounds of detention are based; as the detenu was not even arrested in the cases mentioned at S1. No. 5 and 6 of the above table, the order of the detaining authority suffers from the vice of non-application of mind; recourse to criminal proceedings would be sufficient to deal with the alleged prejudicial activities of the detenu and there was no necessity to detain him preventively under the Act; and therefore, the order of the detaining authority, i.e., the 2nd respondent, dt. 02.01.2013 and the order of the 1st respondent in G.O. Rt. 573 dt. 05.02.2013 are liable to be set aside. The counsel for the petitioner also placed before us the applications filed by the detenu for grant of bail u/S. 437 Cr.P.C. in the cases mentioned at S1. Nos. 1 to 4 in the above table and also the orders of conditional bail granted therein on 12.12.2012 and 13.12.2012. He also filed copies of Crl. The counsel for the petitioner also placed before us the applications filed by the detenu for grant of bail u/S. 437 Cr.P.C. in the cases mentioned at S1. Nos. 1 to 4 in the above table and also the orders of conditional bail granted therein on 12.12.2012 and 13.12.2012. He also filed copies of Crl. M.P. 2641 of 2012 filed by the State to cancel the bail granted to the detenu on 12.12.2012 in Crl. M.P. No. 2623 of 2012 in Cr. No. 147 of 2012 of Nagari P.S. (the case at S1. No. 3 of the above table) and the order dated 19.12.2012 of the J.F.C.M., Nagari, dismissing the said Crl. M.P. No. 2641 of 2012. He also pointed out that if there was any danger of the detenu indulging in activities prejudicial to public order after he was released on bail, that would be a ground to cancel the bail granted to him and not a ground to pass orders of preventive detention against him. He relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another (1) 2011 (3) ALT (Crl.) 219 (SC) = 2011 (4) SCJ 637 = (2011) 5 SCC 244 ; Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharashtra and others (2) 2012 (2) ALT (Crl.) 14 (SC) = 2012 (3) SCJ 168 = (2012) 2 SCC 72 ; Durgam Subrahmanyam v. Government of A.P. and others (3) 2013 (3) ALT 243 (D.B) = 2013 (1) LS 100 (D.B.) (A.P.); and K. Nageswara Naidu v. Collector and District Magistrate Kadapa, YSR District, A.P., (4) 2012 Law Suit (SC) 894. 12. The learned Government Pleader however contended that the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent on 02.01.2013 which was confirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O. Rt. No. 573 General Administration (Law and Order.II) Department dt. 12. The learned Government Pleader however contended that the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent on 02.01.2013 which was confirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O. Rt. No. 573 General Administration (Law and Order.II) Department dt. 05.02.2013 does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of grant of Writ of Habeas Corpus; all relevant material was placed before the 2nd-respondent and after arriving at subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to indulge in such activities which are dangerous and prejudicial to maintenance of public order, 2nd respondent had passed the order of detention; all possibilities and scope of the detenu further indulging in dangerous activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order were considered by 2nd respondent, before, passing the order of detention; the activities of the detenu fall within the definition of "goonda" as defined u/S. 2 (g) of the Act; and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. The learned Government Pleader also drew the attention of the Court to the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent where these contentions are raised. 13. We have considered the contentions of the respective parties. 14. The order of detention dt. 02.01.2013 passed by 2nd respondent or the grounds of detention served on the detenu by 2nd respondent or G.O.Rt.No.573 dt. 05.02.2013 issued by 1st respondent admittedly make no reference to the fact that the detenu had applied for bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C in the four cases mentioned above and he was granted conditional bail in the said cases on 12.12.2012 and 13.12.2012. There is no reference in the counter-affidavit to the fact that the detaining authority was apprised by the sponsoring authority of these facts and that the detaining authority had considered the said facts before passing the order of detention. In para-10 of the counter it is merely stated by the 2nd respondent that "all relevant material was placed before me ..." and in para-11 he stated "... In para-10 of the counter it is merely stated by the 2nd respondent that "all relevant material was placed before me ..." and in para-11 he stated "... all possibilities and scope of detenu further indulging in dangerous activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order were considered and the order of detention passed." In our opinion, these general and vague averments of the 2nd respondent -cannot be taken into account to come to a conclusion that he had indeed been apprised of the fact that the detenu had applied for bail in four of the six cases being considered by the detaining authority; that he had secured conditional bail therein; and that the State had failed to get the bail cancelled in one of the cases in which he is alleged to be involved. When the petitioner has made specific plea in his affidavit that these facts-had not been placed before the 2nd respondent, it was the duty of the 2nd respondent to state specifically whether or not these facts were within his knowledge at the time he passed the order of detention. The order of the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt.573 dt. 05.02.2013 also does not advert to these facts. We, therefore, hold that the 2nd respondent and the respondent have not considered the fact that the detenu had applied for bail in four cases and secured conditional bail on 12.12.2012 and 13.12.2012 before passing the 2nd respondent passed the order of detention on 6.12.2012 (sic. 2-1-2013). 15. In M. Ahmedkutty v. Union of India and another (5) (1990) 2 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court held that non-consideration of the bail order of a detenu would amount to non-application of mind by the detaining authority as it constituted a relevant and important material and its non-consideration was fatal to the subsequent detention order on the ground of non-application of mind. It observed as follows : "Non-consideration of the bail order would have, therefore, in this case amounted to non-application of mind. In Union of India v. Manoharlal Narang (1987) 2 SCC 241 ) the Supreme Court's interim order in pending appeal against High Court's quashing of a previous order of detention against the same detenu was not considered by the detaining authority while making the impugned subsequent order against him. In Union of India v. Manoharlal Narang (1987) 2 SCC 241 ) the Supreme Court's interim order in pending appeal against High Court's quashing of a previous order of detention against the same detenu was not considered by the detaining authority while making the impugned subsequent order against him. By the interim order Supreme Court had permitted the detenu to be at large on condition of his reporting to the police station daily. It was held that non-consideration of the interim order which constituted a relevant and important material was fatal to the subsequent detention order on ground of non-application of mind. If the detaining authority considered that order one could not state with definiteness which way his subjective satisfaction would have reacted and it could have persuaded the detaining authority to desist from passing the order of detention. If in the instant case the bail order on condition of the detenu's reporting to the customs authorities was not considered the detention order itself would have been affected." 16. In Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra (6) (1986) 4 SCC 771 , the Supreme Court reiterated; "We do not think it necessary to go into all the grounds urged before us by the petitioner's counsel in support of his prayer to quash the order of detention. The one contention strongly pressed before us by the petitioner's counsel is that the detaining authority was not made aware at the time the detention order was made that the detenu had moved applications for bail in the three pending cases and that he was enlarged on bail on January 13, 1986, January 14, 1986 and January 15, 1985. We have gone through the detention order carefully. There is absolutely no mention in the order about the fact that the petitioner was an under trial prisoner, that he was arrested in connection with the three cases, that applications for bail were pending and that he was released on three successive days in the three cases. This indicates a total absence of application of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the order of detention." 17. In Rekha's case (1 supra), the Supreme Court held: 25. This indicates a total absence of application of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the order of detention." 17. In Rekha's case (1 supra), the Supreme Court held: 25. In this connection, it may be noted that there is nothing on the record to indicate whether the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the bail application of the accused was pending on the date when the detention order was passed on 08-04-2010. On the other hand, in Para 4 of the grounds of detention it is mentioned that "Thiru. Ramakrishnan is in remand in Crime No. 132 of 2010 and he has not moved any bail application so far". Thus, 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 the alleged similar cases have been given. Hence, the detention order in question cannot be sustained. 18. In Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite's case (2 supra), the Supreme Court declared : "It would be, thus, seen that the order releasing the detenu on bail in the crime registered on 14-8-2010 and the order relaxing the bail condition were passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharangaon much before the issuance of the detention order, dated 10-1-2011. However, the detention order or the grounds supplied to the detenu do not show that the detaining authority was aware of the bail order granted in favour of the detenu on 15-8-2010. In a case where the detenu is released on bail and is enjoying his freedom under the order of the court at the time of passing the order of detention, then such order of bail, in our opinion, must be placed before the detaining authority to enable him to reach at the proper satisfaction. In the present case, since the order of bail dated 15-8-2010 was neither placed before the detaining authority at the time of passing the order of detention nor the detaining authority was aware of the order of bail, in our view, the detention order is rendered invalid. In the present case, since the order of bail dated 15-8-2010 was neither placed before the detaining authority at the time of passing the order of detention nor the detaining authority was aware of the order of bail, in our view, the detention order is rendered invalid. We cannot attempt to assess in what manner and to what extent consideration of the order granting bail to the detenu would have effected the satisfaction of the detaining authority but suffice it to say that non placing and non-consideration of the material as vital as the bail order has vitiated the subjective decision of the detaining authority." 19. In K. Nageswara Naidu (4 supra), the Supreme Court reiterated the view in Rekha (1 supra). Similar view was also taken by this Court in Durgam Subrahmanyam's case (3 supra). 20. In view of the above binding curial authority, we have no hesitation in holding that the order of detention of the detenu passed by the 2nd respondent and confirmed by the 1st respondent is vitiated on account of non-application of mind as they have not considered the fact that the detenu had applied for bail in the above referred four cases and was also granted bail in all the said four cases on 12.12.2012 and 13.12.2012. The sponsoring authority, did not place these orders as also the order dt. 19.12.2012 in Crl.M.P.No.2641 of 2012 of the J.F.C.M; Nagari before the 2nd respondent/detaining authority. This being vital material ought not to have been suppressed by the sponsoring authority. The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to deal with the other grounds raised by the petitioner. 21. For the above reasons, the order dt. 02.01.2013 in Ref. No. C2/10929/2012 of the 2nd respondent and G.O.RLNo.573 General Administration (Law and Order. II) Department dt. 05.01.2013 (sic. 5-2-2013) of the respondent are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The detenu A. Janakiraman S/o Akhilanandam, aged about 47 years, r/o. Kuppamkalimedu Village Kuppam Post, Poluru Taluq, Tiruvannamalai District, Tamil Nadu State, now detained in Cherlapalli jail is directed to be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. No costs.