Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1492 (AP)

Nakka Suvarna v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-10-19

HARINATH.N, R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2024
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 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 2022 Gooty Police Station Under Section 7(a) read with 8(e) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 2. Crime No.11 of 2023 Gooty Police Station Under Section 7(a) read with 8(e) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 3. Crime No.54 of 2023 Gooty Police Station Under Section 7(a) read 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, 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 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 the matter of Vasanthu Sumalatha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , MANU/AP/0602/2015 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. 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 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 from grave threat to their health. The detention order has to be set aside. 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 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 Tamilnadu , (2011) 5 SCC 244 and Champion R. Sangma Vs. State of Meghalaya and Another , 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 3673 (S.C.) 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.