ORDER : 1. Heard Sri D. Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy, Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, apart from perusing the entire material available on record. 2. In the present Writ Petition challenge is to the Order of detention, dated 17.03.2022, vide Roc. No. C1/e-1881533/2022, passed by the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate, West Godavari District, under Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Legers, Dacoits, Drug Offenderes, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land- Grabbers Act, 1986 (For short ‘the Act’) as confirmed by the 1st respondent-State Government vide G.O.Rt. No. 847 General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 10.05.2022. 3. Petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu-Manukonda Anil Kumar. On the ground that the detenu falls under the definition of ‘Goonda” in terms of Section 2(g) of the Act and that the activities of the detenu are dangerous and prejudicial to the maintenance of public order apart from disturbing the peace, tranquility, social harmony/order in the society, the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate passed the impugned Order of detention dated 17.03.2022. 4. The very genesis for initiation of the Proceedings against the detenu is the Registration of seventeen (17) crimes in different police Stations against him. The particulars of the said crimes are as follows: S. No. Crime No. and date Police Station Sections 1. 922/2013, 26.07.2013 L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad 454 and 380 IPC 2. 102/2014, 14.04.2014 Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry 454 and 380 IPC 3. 35/2014, 12.03.2014 Machilipatnam, Krishna District 454 and 380 IPC 4. 195/2014, 09.05.2014 V Town PS, Nellore 454 and 380 IPC 5. 203/2015, 17.09.2015 Tirupati Town PS 454 and 380 IPC 6. 408/2015, 27.11.2015 Sarpavaram PS E.G. District 457 and 380 IPC 7. 136/2016, 03.04.2016 Tirupati Town PS 457 and 380 IPC 8. 120/2016, 15.04.2016 Sarpavaram PS 457 and 380 IPC 9. 20/2017, 16.01.2017 Bhimavaram II Town PS, WG Dist 457 and 380 IPC 10. 54/2020, 08.02.2020 Alamuru PS, Tadikalapudi, E.G. Dist. 307, 341 and 392 IPC 11. 41/2020, 03.03.20202 Alamuru PS, E.G. Dist. 307, 341 and 392 IPC 12. 36/2021, 10.02.2021 Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry 392, 457 and 342 IPC 13. 136/2021, 24.03.2021 Chintalapudi 457 and 380 IPC 14. 282/2021, 24.08.2021 Gudivada I Town PS 379 IPC 15. 387/2021, 28.08.2021 Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry 457 and 380 IPC 16. 332/2021, 31.08.2021 Amalapuram 454 and 380 IPC 17. 41/2020, 03.03.20202 Alamuru PS, E.G. Dist. 307, 341 and 392 IPC 12. 36/2021, 10.02.2021 Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry 392, 457 and 342 IPC 13. 136/2021, 24.03.2021 Chintalapudi 457 and 380 IPC 14. 282/2021, 24.08.2021 Gudivada I Town PS 379 IPC 15. 387/2021, 28.08.2021 Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry 457 and 380 IPC 16. 332/2021, 31.08.2021 Amalapuram 454 and 380 IPC 17. 558/2021, 03.10.2021 Saroornagar PS, Hyderabad 457 and 380 read with Section 511 IPC 5. Vide G.O.Rt. No. 524 General Administration (SC-1) Department, dated 24.03.2022, the 1st respondent-State of Andhra Pradesh, passed the Orders of approval and referred the matter to the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board submitted report on 28.04.2022 and the 1st respondent eventually confirmed the Order of detention vide G.O.Rt. No. 847 General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 10.05.2022 and ordered continuation of detention for twelve months from the date of detention i.e. 20.03.2022. Assailing the validity and legal sustainability of the said Order of detention, and the Order of confirmation passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents respectively, the present Writ Petition came to be instituted. 6. Counter affidavit, deposed by the Collector and District Magistrate-2nd respondent is filed, denying the allegations and averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and in the direction of justifying the impugned action. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Order of detention passed by the Collector and District Magistrate 2nd respondent as confirmed by the 1st respondent-State of Andhra Pradesh is highly illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, besides being opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Act. It is further argued that by giving complete go-by to the mandatory requirements of law, as provided under Section 3 of the Act, the 2nd respondent, who is the detaining authority, passed the Order of detention. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate failed to record the satisfaction in accordance with law, as mandated under Section 3 of the Act, which is mandatory and indispensable. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the sponsoring authority suppressed the fact relating to the grant of bails by the concerned Courts and the suppression of information with regard to the same before the detaining authority is fatal to the case. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the sponsoring authority suppressed the fact relating to the grant of bails by the concerned Courts and the suppression of information with regard to the same before the detaining authority is fatal to the case. In support of his submissions and contentions, learned counsel places reliance on the Judgments in Champion R. Sangma vs. State of Meghalaya and Another, (2015) 16 SCC 253 and the Order dated 01.08.2022 passed in W.P. No. 12946 of 2022 and another Order dated 04.11.2022 passed in W.P. No. 17210 of 2022 by this Court. 8. On the contrary, the learned Additional Advocate General, strongly resisting the Writ Petition, contends that there is absolutely no illegality nor there exists any procedural infirmity in the impugned action and in the absence of the same, the present Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate, only after taking into consideration the involvement of the detenu in various successive crimes passed the Order of detention and there is no contravention of any of the provisions of the statute. 9. In the above background, now the issue that emerges for consideration of this Court in the present Writ Petition is “Whether the Order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate as confirmed by the 1st respondent-State Government is sustainable and tenable?” 10. The material available on record discloses, in clear and vivid terms, that out of 17 crimes registered against the detenu as on the date of passing the Order of detention, in as much as 16 crimes, the detenu was enlarged on bail. The State of Andhra Pradesh with an intention to provide for preventive detention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Legers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and Land Grabbers for preventing their dangerous activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, enacted the Act. 11. In the case on hand, by categorizing the son of the petitioner herein as ‘Goonda’ the Order of detention came to be passed by the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate. 11. In the case on hand, by categorizing the son of the petitioner herein as ‘Goonda’ the Order of detention came to be passed by the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate. According to the Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act ‘Goonda’ means a person who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapters XVI or XVII or XXII of the Indian Penal Code. Section 3 of the Act confers on the authorities power to make order, detaining certain persons. Section 3 of the Act reads as follows: “3. Power to make order detaining certain persons: (1) The Government may, if satisfied with respect to any boot-legger, dacoit, drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or land-grabber that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. (2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the Government are satisfied that it is necessary so to do, they may, by order in writing, direct that during such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section(1), exercise the powers conferred by the said subsection: Provided that the period specified in the order made by the Government under this sub-section shall not in the first instance, exceed three months, but the Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such order to extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at any one time. (3) When any order is made under this section by an officer mentioned in sub-section (2), he shall forthwith report the fact to the Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the Government.” 12. It is very much lucid from a reading of the above provision of law that before branding an individual as a ‘Goonda’ recording of satisfaction is mandatory and indispensable on the part of the detaining authority. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate, in the instant case, did not make any endeavor to record such satisfaction in the Order of detention except referring to the alleged involvement of the detenu in various crimes. 13. Undoubtedly, the laudable object in enacting the present legislation is to ensure the maintenance of peace and tranquility in the society, which is highly essential for development and at the same time, we should never be oblivious of the ground reality that the provisions of the present legislation deal with the penal consequences and eventually impact the liberty of the individuals as such, strict adherence to the provisions of law is required to be observed and the competent authorities under the Act are required to examine the issues with lot of care, caution and circumspection. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Champion R. Sangma’s case (supra), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of the Preventive detention, at paragraphs-13 and 14 held as follows: “13. In view of the above, it was for the respondents to satisfy the Court as to whether the triple requirements, as postulated above, stand satisfied in the present case. We find that the respondents have miserably failed to fulfil this requirement. 14. In the instant case, though the detention order and even the grounds of detention record the factum of the appellant's being in custody, no satisfaction has been recorded by the detaining authority that there was reliable material before the authority on the basis of which it would have reasons to believe that there was real possibility of his release on bail. It is not mentioned as to whether any bail application was even moved by the appellant or not, what to take out likely fate of such an application. The order is also conspicuously silent on the aspect as to whether there was any probability of indulging in activity if the appellant would be released on bail. It is not mentioned as to whether any bail application was even moved by the appellant or not, what to take out likely fate of such an application. The order is also conspicuously silent on the aspect as to whether there was any probability of indulging in activity if the appellant would be released on bail. On the contrary, we are amazed that the averments made in the counter-affidavit which are self-defeating and clinching the issue against the respondent at p. 171 Para 3 of the paper book which reads as under: “3. I state that the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the detaining authority was satisfied that there was some likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and thereafter the detention order was passed to prevent such contingency is completely unfounded. In fact the detention order was passed on 29-1-2013 and from the detention order it no way reflects that with a view to pre-empt the petitioner from getting the bail in the pending 8 criminal cases that the detention order 2013 was passed. In fact after noticing the fact that the petitioner was arrested by the police in various unlawful activities and crimes like extortion, dacoity, kidnapping, murder and robbery with deadly weapons for ransom. for disruption of public order, etc. and being satisfied that if the petitioner is allowed to remain at large he would act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and shall be a constant threat to peace that the detention order was passed under Section 3(1) of the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act 1995.” 14. A perusal of the order of detention passed by the detaining authority shows that the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate did not follow the law laid down in the aforesaid Judgment and Section 3 of the Act. 15. Coming to the second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sponsoring authority-Superintendent of Police, did not place the particulars as regards the bail orders before the detaining authority, it would be relevant to refer to the Judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 17210 of 2022 dated 04.11.2022, wherein the bench held that the orders of the detention is illegal and arbitrary. A perusal of the order of detention, vividly shows the same. 16. A perusal of the order of detention, vividly shows the same. 16. In the considered opinion of this Court, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court referred to above, are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the Order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate, West Godavari District, vide Proceedings in Roc. No. C1/e-1881533/2022, dated 17.03.2022, as confirmed by the 1st respondent-State Government vide G.O.Rt. No. 847 General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 10.05.2022 and consequently, it is ordered that the detenu, namely, Manukonda Anil Kumar S/o Late Kantha Rao, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases and if there are no other orders against the detenu. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this case, shall stand closed.