ORDER : 1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the mother of detenu Bandla. Hari Krishna seeks a direction to set aside the detention order in Proc.No. 64/2023-C1, dated 29.05.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent and confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 1451, dated 24.07.2023 and set the detenu at liberty. 2. The 2nd respondent taking into consideration the following five crimes in which the detenu was allegedly involved, treated him as a bootlegger under Section 2(b) of Act No. 1 of Andhra Pradesh Prevention of dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986) and passed the detention order dated 29.05.2023 and later the 1st respondent passed the confirmation G.O.Rt.No. 1451, dated 24.07.2023 authorizing his detention for one year: 1 Cr.No. 08/2021, dt: 14.01.2021 of Narasaraopet SEB Station U/s 34(a) & 50-B of the AP Excise Act. 2 Cr.No. 100/2021, dated 02.08.2021 of Narsaraopet, SEB Station U/s 34(a) of the AP Excise Act. 3 Cr.No. 106/2021, dated 11.08.2021 of Narsaraopet, SEB Station U/s 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act. 4 Cr.No. 01/2023, dated 20.01.2023 of Narsaraopet, SEB Station U/s 7(A) r/w Section 8(e) of the AP Prohibition Act and Section 50(a) of the AP Excise Act 5 Cr.No. 05/2023, dated 01.02.2023 of Narsaraopet, SEB Station U/s 7(A) r/w Section 8(e) of the AP Prohibition Act. 3. The 2nd respondent filed counter on behalf of respondents and opposed the writ petition. 4. Heard argument of Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Special Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General for respondents. 5. Though different grounds were raised to attack the impugned detention order, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that the five offences in which the detenu was allegedly involved can be effectively dealt with by general law i.e., A.P Prohibition and Excise Act and those offences even if taken to be true do not pose any threat to the public order. He would mainly contend that the five offences may at best effect law and order but not public order. He would mainly contend that the five offences may at best effect law and order but not public order. He further argued, of the five cases, in three cases i.e., Cr.No. 8/2021, Cr.No. 100/2021 and Cr.No. 106/2021 of Narasaraopet SEB PS, the allegations are to the effect that the detenu and some others were conducting illegal sale of non-duty paid liquor in Andhra Pradesh whereas the contraband seized was intended for sale in Telangana only. He would submit that the sample bottles sent to chemical examiner, Guntur, who opined that the samples are Indian liquor. He would argue that the chemical examiner did not opine the liquor involved in these cases to be unfit for human consumption and cause danger to public life or health. Therefore, those three cases squarely fall within the ambit of violation of general law of Prohibition and Excise rather than Act 1 of 1986. He thus prayed to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader while supporting the impugned detention order argued that the detenue is a habitual offender involved in stealthily transporting non-duty paid liquor from a neighbouring State of Telangana and selling in Andhra Pradesh and he also involved in manufacturing and selling the I.D. liquor and therefore, he is a habitual bootlegger. He would further argue that though in first three crimes the detenue was charged for transporting and selling the non-duty paid liquor from Telangana, in remaining two cases he was found selling I.D. liquor which is unfit for human consumption and injurious to public health and in extreme cases it may lead to death of the consumer. Thus, taking the totality of the circumstances, which is grave in nature, the Detaining Authority has rightly passed the detention order. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 8. Point: Having heard the above arguments, we have punctiliously perused the detention order and relevant law. Section 3 empowers the Government or the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police as authorized by the Government to pass detention order with respect to any bootlegger, dacoit, drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or land-grabber with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Section 3 empowers the Government or the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police as authorized by the Government to pass detention order with respect to any bootlegger, dacoit, drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or land-grabber with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The sine qua non for ordering preventive detention of the aforesaid class of persons is to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Section 2(a) of the Act 1 of 1986 defined the clause “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” as follows: “2. Definitions: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" means when a boot-legger, a dacoit, a goonda, an immoral traffic offender or a land-grabber is engaged or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as such, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order: Explanation:- For the purpose of this clause public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely, or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely inter alia, if any of the activities of any of the persons referred to in this clause directly, or indirectly, is causing or calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life or public health.” (a) Thus, the clause “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” means, if any of the aforesaid class of persons, engaged or making preparations in any one of his activities, which affect adversely or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order, such acts can be said to cause prejudice to the maintenance of public order. The public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely if any of the activities of the above categorized persons cause harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life or public health. 9. It must be noted, in the instant case, the detenu is classified as ‘bootlegger’. Therefore, it is essential to discuss when his acts can be treated as prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 9. It must be noted, in the instant case, the detenu is classified as ‘bootlegger’. Therefore, it is essential to discuss when his acts can be treated as prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. For this purpose we have to refer to Section 2(a) which is extracted supra. When Section 2(a) is analyzed with reference to a 'bootlegger’, it would demonstrate that if his activities cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life or public health, then it can be said that he acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. More than causing harm, danger, alarm, feeling of insecurity among the public, a bootlegger’s activities generally cause widespread danger to life or public health in general or to any section of people thereof. Therefore, if the activities of a bootlegger cause danger to public health even without causing any other evil, such activities fall within the expression “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” as defined under Section 2(a). In this regard, in Pesala Nookaraju vs. The Government of A.P. 2023/INSC/734 : MANU/SC/0893/2023 the Apex Court observed thus: “64. Thus, from the various decisions referred to above, it is evident that there is a very thin line between the question of law and order situation and a public order situation, and some times, the acts of a person relating to law and order situation can turn into a question of public order situation. What is decisive for determining the connection of ground of detention with the maintenance of public order, the object of detention, is not an intrinsic quality of the act but rather its latent potentiality. Therefore, for determining whether the ground of detention is relevant for the purposes of public order or not, merely an objective test based on the intrinsic quality of an act would not be a safe guide. The potentiality of the act has to be examined in the light of the surrounding circumstances, posterior and anterior for the offences under the Prohibition Act. 65. Just because four cases have been registered against the Appellant detenu under the Prohibition Act, by itself, may not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order. The detenu may be punished for the offences which have been registered against him. 65. Just because four cases have been registered against the Appellant detenu under the Prohibition Act, by itself, may not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order. The detenu may be punished for the offences which have been registered against him. To put it in other words, if the detention is on the ground that the detenu is indulging in manufacture or transport or sale of liquor then that by itself would not become an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order because the same can be effectively dealt with under the provisions of the Prohibition Act but if the liquor sold by the detenu is dangerous to public health then under the Act 1986, it becomes an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, therefore, it becomes necessary for the detaining authority to be satisfied on material available to it that the liquor dealt with by the detenu is liquor which is dangerous to public health to attract the provisions of the 1986 Act and if the detaining authority is satisfied that such material exists either in the form of report of the Chemical Examiner or otherwise, copy of such material should also be given to the detenu to afford him an opportunity to make an effective representation.” (Emphasis Supplied) Thus it is held by Hon’ble Apex Court that to attract the Act 1 of 1986, the liquor manufactured or transported or sold by the detenu shall be dangerous to public health so that the said activity can be regarded as prejudicial to the maintenance to the public order. In the light of aforesaid jurisprudence, when the case on hand is analyzed, out of five cases considered by the 2nd respondent for passing detention order, in three cases i.e., Cr.No. 8/2021, Cr.No. 100/2021 and Cr.No. 106/2021, the liquor seized is a non duty paid liquor intended for sale in Telangana State only. Therefore, in those cases the detenu and other concerned were charged for conducting illegal sale of non duty paid liquor. Further, in those three cases the chemical examiner in his reports only mentioned that the samples referred to him are Indian liquor. He did not mention that the said liquor is injurious to public health. Therefore, in our view, those three cases will not attract the violation of public order U/s 2(a) r/w Section 3 of Act 1 of 1986. Further, in those three cases the chemical examiner in his reports only mentioned that the samples referred to him are Indian liquor. He did not mention that the said liquor is injurious to public health. Therefore, in our view, those three cases will not attract the violation of public order U/s 2(a) r/w Section 3 of Act 1 of 1986. Of course in the remaining two cases the chemical examiner reported that the samples contained ID liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to public health and in extreme cases it may lead to death. However, since the Detaining Authority has taken all the five cases into consideration to express his subjective satisfaction, we are constrained to hold that the said satisfaction is vitiated for non meeting the requirement of law as described supra in 3 cases. Therefore, on this ground alone the detention order is liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the detention order in Proc.No. 64/2023-C1, dated 29.05.2023 passed by 2nd respondent/The Collector and District Magistrate, Palnadu District, Narsaraopet, A.P. is hereby set aside and the detenu viz., Bandla Hari Krishna, S/o Malleswara Rao, resident of Pamidipadu Village, Narsaraopet Mandal, Palnadu District is directed to be released forthwith by the respondents if the detenu is not required in any other cases. No costs. 11. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.