ORDER : 1. Petitioner prays for writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground that her sister’s son Shaik Jameer, S/o Late Gayaz Basha was illegally detained pursuant to the proceedings in Rc.C1(Magl)/191/2023, dated 24.07.2023 of the 2nd respondent as confirmed in G.O.Rt. No. 1911, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 25.09.2023 by the 1st respondent and therefore the said detention order may be declared as illegal and consequently respondents may be directed to release the detenue. 2. The petitioner’s case is that the 2nd respondent vide order dated 24.07.2023 passed the detention order against Shaik Jameer S/o Late Gayaz Basha having taken into consideration the following 5 cases in which the detenue was involved treating him as “Drug Offender” as defined U/s 2(f) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (1 of 1986) [for short ‘the Act 1 of 1986’]. 1. Cr. No. 155/2014, U/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 of Santhapeta PS, Nellore City. 2. Cr. No. 49/2018 U/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act, 1985 of Santhapeta PS, Nellore City. 3. Cr. No. 89/2022 U/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 of Nellore SEB-1 P.S. 4. Cr. No. 14/2023 U/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 of Nellore SEB-1 P.S. 5. Cr. No. 19/2023 U/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985 of Kavali SEB P.S. Subsequently the Government have confirmed his detention vide proceedings in G.O.Rt. No. 1911, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 25.09.2023. Hence the writ petition. 3. 2nd respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri Kondreddy Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Special Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General for respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Kondreddy Vamsi Krishna would firstly argue that out of 5 cases considered for issuing detention order, in two cases i.e. Cr. No. 155/2014 and Cr. No. 49/2018 which were registered for the offences U/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act, 1985, the detenue was acquitted in concerned S.C.Nos.11 of 2014 and S.C. No. 13 of 2018 on 07.11.2016 and 14.02.2022 respectively as per the judgment of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore and remaining three cases are concerned, the detenue got regular bail in two cases i.e. Cr. No. 89/2022 registered for the offences U/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 and Cr. No. 14/2023 registered for the offences U/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985. Regarding the 5th case in Cr. No. 19/2023 registered for the offences U/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985, the detenue was added as an accused No. 13 basing on the confession of the A1 and A2 and no Ganja was seized from the possession of the detenue and the detenue got regular bail on 23.08.2023 i.e. after detention order. Learned counsel further submits that the detention order was passed by the detaining authority treating the detenue as a drug offender to prevent him from indulging in dangerous activities in the future. The detenue will not fall under the said criteria and the order of detention does not have any material that the detenue possessed and transported the Ganja in commercial quantity. He further argued that the detenue was acquitted in two cases i.e. (1) Cr. No. 155/2014 and (2) Cr. No. 49/2018 long back from the date of detention order which were also taken into consideration for ordering preventive detention and thus, those two cases were ended in acquittal long prior to the detention order dated 24.07.2023 and therefore, those two cases do not form a live link to the current activities of the detenue and hence, the detention per se became illegal due to the irrelevant consideration of stale cases. (b) Secondly learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondent authorities have supplied illegible documents to the detenue, for which act of respondent authorities, grave prejudice is caused to the detenue in availing his right to send a representation to the respondent authorities. In this regard, he placed reliance on Pramod Singla vs. Union of India, 2023 Law Suit (SC) 349 : 2023 (2) SCR 793 . He thus prayed to set aside the detention order. 6. In oppugnation, learned Special Government Pleader argued that the detenue was habitually involved in 5 cases and his activities fall under the definition of “drug offender” as per section 2(f) of the Act 1 of 1986. All these activities, he forcibly argued, are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Since the ordinary laws have had no deterrent effect on him, the detaining authority has rightly ordered his preventive detention under the Act 1 of 1986. All these activities, he forcibly argued, are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Since the ordinary laws have had no deterrent effect on him, the detaining authority has rightly ordered his preventive detention under the Act 1 of 1986. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. The point for consideration is whether the Detaining Authority has taken into consideration the irrelevant and stale materials and thereby the detention order per se became illegal and liable to bet set aside? 8. Point: As can be seen from the detention order and grounds of detention dated 24.07.2023, admittedly the Detaining Authority has taken into consideration five crimes narrated supra and expressed his subjective satisfaction that the detenue comes under the definition ‘drug offender’ under Section 2(f) of the Act 1 of 1986 and his activities are dangerous to human life and prejudice to the maintenance of public order and accordingly, passed the detention order. Therefore, it has now to be seen whether the 2nd respondent has arrived at subjective satisfaction in accordance with the provisions of the Act 1 of 1986 or his order is vitiated by law. (a) Section 2(f) of the Act 1 of 1986 defines the term ‘drug offender’ as follows: “(f) “drug offender” means a person, who manufactures, stocks, imports, exports, sells or distributes any drug or cultivates any plant or does any other thing in contravention of any of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Central Act XXIII of 1940) or [the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985] [(Central Act 61 of 1985)] and the rules, notifications and orders made under either Act, or in contravention of any other Law for the time being in force, or who knowingly expends or applies any money in (furtherance or support of doing of any of the above mentioned things by himself or through any other person or who abets in any other manner the doing of any such thing.” 9. Be that as it may, in the light of the above definition, when the five crimes are scrutinized, two cases which were taken into consideration for ordering preventive detention, were ended in acquittal long prior to the detention order dated 24.07.2023. Therefore, there is force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Detaining Authority has considered irrelevant material to order preventive detention. 10. Therefore, there is force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Detaining Authority has considered irrelevant material to order preventive detention. 10. The effect of considering the stale and irrelevant material has been considered and explicated by the Hon’ble Apex Court and other High Courts in a number of cases: (a) In Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/SC/0082/1981 : AIR 1981 SC 870 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the detention must be pertinent and not irrelevant, proximate and not stale, precise and not vague and irrelevance, staleness and vagueness are vices and any single one of which is sufficient to vitiate the ground of detention and a single vicious ground is sufficient to vitiate an order of detention. (b) In Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana, 2020 (13) SCC 632 the detention order was dated 25.10.2018. About 14 cases ranging between 2007 and 2016 were taken into consideration for ordering preventive detention. In that context, the Apex Court held that the satisfaction to be arrived at by the Detaining Authority must not be based on irrelevant or invalid grounds. It must be arrived at on the basis of a relevant material; material which is not stale and has a live link with the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. The order of detention may refer to previous criminal antecedents only if they have a direct nexus or link with the immediate need to detain an individual. If the previous criminal activities of the appellant could indicate his tendency or inclination to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, then it may have a bearing on the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. However, in the absence of a clear indication of a casual connection, a mere reference to the pending criminal cases cannot account for the requirements of Section 3. It is not open to the Detaining Authority to simply refer to stale incidents and hold them as the basis of an order of detention. The detention order was accordingly set aside by the Apex Court. It is not open to the Detaining Authority to simply refer to stale incidents and hold them as the basis of an order of detention. The detention order was accordingly set aside by the Apex Court. (c) In The Collector and District Magistrate, W.G. District, Eluru, Andhra Pradesh v. Sangala Kondamma, MANU/SC/1050/2004 : 2005 (3) SCC 666 cited by the Special Government Pleader, the Apex Court observed thus: “10.........Therefore, it is necessary for the authority proposing the detention of a person under the Act to produce such material which shows the continuous previous illegal activities of the proposed detenue which would satisfy the detaining authority of the need for detaining such a person. In other words, the material produced by the authority proposing the detention should form a chain of incidents last of which will have to be proximate to the date of proposed detention while other acts must be proximate to each other. Thus, if the facts placed before the detaining authority are proximate to each other and the last of the fact mentioned in proximate to the order of detention then the early incidents cannot be treated as stale and detention order cannot be set aside......” (Emphasis supplied) (d) Applying the above jurisprudence, in the instant case, the facts are that the first two cases were ended in acquittal in the concerned Sessions Case No. 11/2014 and S.C. No. 13/2018 on 07.11.2016 and 14.02.2022. It should be noted that the crimes relating to those cases were Cr. No. 155/2014 and Cr. No. 49/2018 and there was a wide gap between those two cases. Added to it, long prior to the date of detention i.e. 24.07.2023, those two cases ended in acquittal. Therefore, in our view, those two cases do not form a live link for the detention order except a mere reference of past events. Therefore, the detention order suffered the infirmity of considering the stale and irrelevant material and is vitiated by law. In view of finding force in the first argument of the petitioner, we are not delving into other contentions of the petitioner. 11. Therefore, the detention order suffered the infirmity of considering the stale and irrelevant material and is vitiated by law. In view of finding force in the first argument of the petitioner, we are not delving into other contentions of the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the detention order in Rc.C1(Magl)/191/2023, dated 24.07.2023 passed by 2nd respondent-The Collector & District Magistrate, SPSR Nellore District, is hereby set aside and the detenue namely Shaik Jameer S/o Gayaz Basha (Late) is directed to be released forthwith by the respondents, if the detenue is not required in any other cases. No costs. 12. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.