ORDER : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Challenging the Order Of Detention passed by the 2nd Respondent i.e., the Collector & District Magistrate, Chittoor, on 18.08.2020 under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1/1986) on the ground that the detenu is a bootlegger within the meaning of the Act, and that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the present Writ Petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus. 2. The detenu was arrested on 19.08.2020. The grounds of detention was served on him, referring to three incidents registered under Section 7A read with 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. In order to show that the detenu has no respect for law and that his activities could not be controlled by invoking the normal legal procedure, the grounds of detention also refer to four other crimes registered under the very same sections of law. 3. In exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, the Government approved the detention order vide proceedings dated 29.08.2020 within 12 days. As required under Section 10 of the Act, the case of the detenu was placed before the Advisory Board for its consideration and to submit its report to the Government under Section 11(1) of the said Act. On 30.09.2020, the Advisory Board reviewed the case of the detenu through video conference and after hearing the detenu and his father, who is the petitioner herein, and after perusing the material on record, opined that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu. The report dated 30.09.2020 was sent to the Government. In exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 12 read with Section 13 of the Act, the Government issued proceedings dated 12.10.2020, ordering detention of the detenu for a period of one year from the date of detention i.e., 19.08.2020. 4. Mr. D. Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner representing Mr. Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, mainly submits that the order of detention has been passed on vague, irrelevant and non-existant grounds. 4. Mr. D. Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner representing Mr. Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, mainly submits that the order of detention has been passed on vague, irrelevant and non-existant grounds. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Munagala Yadamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 386, the counsel would contend that an offence committed by the petitioner, which attracts punishment under A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 should have been dealt with under the said law and taking recourse to preventive detention laws is unwarranted. The counsel further submits that the order of detention is vitiated as the fact of detenu being acquitted in two of four cases referred to in the grounds of detention was not placed before the detaining authority. He further submits that the representation made by the Petitioner was never considered by the authorities till date. This abnormal delay in not considering the representation made by the detenu is sufficient to quash the detention order. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, learned Government Pleader representing the respondents filed a detailed counter explaining their stand. It is stated that merely because there is reference to some of the crimes registered against the detenu in the grounds of detention, does not by itself make the detention order invalid, even if relevant material in respect of those crimes is not considered by the detaining authority. In other words, he would submit that the detaining authority relied only on three crimes i.e., Crime No. 140/2019 dated 05.06.2019; Crime No. 223/2019 dated 26.08.2019 and Crime No. 108/2020 dated 04.07.2020, for passing the order of detention. Insofar as non-considering the representation of the detenu, it is submitted that there is absolutely no material on record to show that the said representation was made by the detenu or given by the Petitioner, to the jail authorities. As regards the issue, that the ordinary law would have been sufficient to tackle the situation, it is stated that the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court will not apply to the facts on hand. 6. Munagala Yadamma case [supra], was a case where the detenu was detained under the same Act and was involved in several cases registered under Section 7A read with Section 8(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. Taking into consideration the ratio laid down in Rekha Vs. 6. Munagala Yadamma case [supra], was a case where the detenu was detained under the same Act and was involved in several cases registered under Section 7A read with Section 8(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. Taking into consideration the ratio laid down in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and Anr.,, 2011(5)SCC 244 the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the fact situation, set-aside the order of detention. It is to be noted here that the offences alleged now are much grave in nature than those alleged in the case before the Hon’ble Apex Court. As stated earlier, in Munagala Yadamma case [supra], the detenu was involved in offences punishable under Section 7A read with Section 8(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, wherein the maximum punishment was upto six months or with fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/-or with both. But, in the instant case, the detenu is alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 7A read with Section 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, wherein, on conviction, he shall be imprisoned for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend up to five years and with fine which shall not be less than two lakhs for the first offence and which shall not be less than five lakhs for the second offence. Therefore, having regard to the gravity of the offence, it can be said that the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner may not apply to the case on hand, and, as such, we are not in agreement with the plea that the authorities erred in invoking the preventive detention laws. 7. Coming to the second ground, namely, that the relevant material was not placed before the detaining authority in respect of other four crimes while passing the order of detention, it is to be noted that the detaining authority relied upon three incidents, namely, Crime No. 140/2019; Crime No. 223/2019 and Crime No.108/2020 for passing the order of detention. But, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that non-consideration of the relevant material in respect of other crimes referred to in the grounds of detention at the time of passing of detention order would also vitiate the proceedings. But, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that non-consideration of the relevant material in respect of other crimes referred to in the grounds of detention at the time of passing of detention order would also vitiate the proceedings. The learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal v. Police Commissioner and Another, (1989) 2 Supreme Court Cases 370 in support of his plea. But, a perusal of the said judgment would show that the facts in the said case are totally different. The non-consideration of the material in the said case, namely, the acquittal of the detenu in the cases registered in Crime Nos. 411 and 412 of 1982 of Sherkot Police Station, were part of the grounds relied upon by the detaining authority for passing of detention order. But, in the instant case, the situation is different. As stated earlier, the detaining authority relied upon three crimes and the reference to other crimes was only to show that he has no respect towards law and that his activities could not be controlled just by invoking the normal legal procedure. In fact, in the grounds of detention served on the detenu, it has been categorically stated that these four crimes were never considered as grounds for issue of order of detention. It would be appropriate to extract the same, which is as under: “Though not considered as grounds for issue of orders for your detention under Act 1/1986, you were also involved / arrested in the following cases of Chittoor Urban Prohibition & Excise Station. 1. Cr. No. 97/2018, Dt: 13-04-2018 under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 of Chittoor Urban Prohibition & Excise Station involving 1300 sachets illicitly distilled liquor (each sachet with 100 ml), totally 130 liters of illicitly distilled liquor and one unregistered TVS XL Super Heavy Duty vehicle. 2. Cr. No. 120/2018, Dt: 27-06-2018 under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 of Chittoor Urban Prohibition & Excise Station involving 40 liters of illicitly distilled wash. 3. Cr. No. 160/2018, Dt: 24-08-2018 under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 of Chittoor Urban Prohibition & Excise Station involving 1200 liters of fermented jaggery wash. 4. Cr. No. 120/2018, Dt: 27-06-2018 under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 of Chittoor Urban Prohibition & Excise Station involving 40 liters of illicitly distilled wash. 3. Cr. No. 160/2018, Dt: 24-08-2018 under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 of Chittoor Urban Prohibition & Excise Station involving 1200 liters of fermented jaggery wash. 4. Cr. No.176/2018, Dt: 09-09-2018 of Chittoor Urban Prohibition & Excise Station under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 involving two gunny bags each bag containing 500 illicitly distilled liquor sachets (each sachet with 100 ml), totally 1000 sachets (100 liters) and one Hero Honda Splendor Plus motorcycle bearing Reg. No. AP03 BB 1112.” 8. Therefore, non-consideration of the material, namely, acquittal in the two out of four crimes, in our view, does not vitiate the order of detention, as the said crimes were never made the basis for passing the order of detention. 9. The last ground urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that though a representation was made to the Superintendent of Police, but the same was not sent to the authorities for consideration. According to the Petitioner, the representation dated 04.09.2020 was received by Central Prison, Kadapa, on 15.09.2020, but in spite of the same, the same was not forwarded to the Chief Secretary for consideration. 10. In the counter filed by the Respondents, it is stated as follows: “As per the said Track Consignment, a cover said to have contained the representation dated 4.9.2020 was booked at Mangalagiri H.O. on 4.2.2020. The Guntur RMS L2R received the said cover on 5.9.2020 and it had dispatched the said cover to Cuddapah RMS L2R. The Cuddapah RMS L2R received the said cover on 7.9.2020 and dispatched the said cover to Shankapuram (Cuddapah) SO, which in turn delivered the said cover at Central Prison B.O. on 15.9.2020. The Guntur RMS L2R received the said cover on 5.9.2020 and it had dispatched the said cover to Cuddapah RMS L2R. The Cuddapah RMS L2R received the said cover on 7.9.2020 and dispatched the said cover to Shankapuram (Cuddapah) SO, which in turn delivered the said cover at Central Prison B.O. on 15.9.2020. It is submitted that the Superintendent of Jails, Central Prisons, Kadapa vide letter No. CPK/Jr(MG)/6412/2020, dt:22-12-2020 has informed that “he has received certain papers over post in respect of Y. Deepak and to the Chief Secretary of Government, A.P., Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District were enclosed, there is no covering letter or any instructions along with the said copies in the letter and as such, the Superintendent of Jails, Central Prisons, Kadapa has communicated the said papers to Y. Deepak, Detenu, who in turn informed this office that he will personally hand over the papers to the Advisory Board when he appear before the Board with his grievances. Accordingly he has given his written statement to that effect and the same was informed to his family members by post.” 11. However, in the reply affidavit, it has been stated that the papers were handed over to Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Kadapa, to be handed over to the Chief Secretary of Government of Andhra Pradesh. A perusal of the material placed before the court, more particularly, the averments in the affidavit, counter and reply, does not anywhere indicate that the representation was submitted by the detenu to the Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Kadapa, to be forwarded to the Chief Secretary. On the other hand, a postal cover was received containing certain papers addressed to the detenu and to the Chief Secretary of Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravathi, without any letter or instructions to be sent to the authorities. As such, the Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, handed over the said papers to the detenu, who informed that he will hand over the said papers to the Members of the Advisory Board. Though, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner tried to contend that the representation was in fact handed over to the Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Kadapa, but, no material has been placed to that affect. Though, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner tried to contend that the representation was in fact handed over to the Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Kadapa, but, no material has been placed to that affect. If really those papers were handed over to the Superintendent for forwarding the same to Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, definitely an acknowledgement to that effect would have been taken by the detenu. In the absence of any material to show that the papers received by the detenu were handed over to the Superintendent of Jail for onward transmission, the argument that there was delay in considering the representation of the detenu by the authorities cannot be accepted. 12. Viewed from any angle, we see no merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. All the pending miscellaneous applications; if any, are closed.