Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Harinath.N) The writ petition is filed challenging the order of detention vide Rev-CSE0PDL (PRC)/7/2023-MAGL4, DT.13.09.2023 as permitted by the respondent No.1 vide GORt.No.1110,General Administration (SC.I) Department, Dt.06.06.2023. 2. The petitioner is the mother of detenu who was detained vide order of detention dated 13.09.2023. The 1st respondent confirmed the detention order and issued G.O.Rt.No.1110, dated06.06.2023. The detenu was involved in the following 13 cases. S.No. Crime No. Police Station Offences under Sections 1. Crime No.10 of 2016 Tiruchanooru Tirupati Urban District Under Section 120-b, 201, 302, 341 IPC 2. Crime No.82 of 2015 Tiruchanooru Police Station, Tirupati Urban District Under Section 341, 506 IPC read with 34 IPC 3. Crime No.47 of 2017 Yadamari Police Station Under Section 307 IPC 4. Crime No.122 of 2018 Tiruchanooru Police Station, Tirupati Urban District Under Section 307, 341, 506 IPC 5. Crime No.157 of 2020 Yadamarri Police Station Under Section 307, 324, 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 6. Crime No.158 of 2020 Yadamarri Police Station Under Section 307, 332, 353 IPC 7. Crime No.61 of 2022 Yadamarri Police Station Under Section 7 (B) read with 8 (B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 8. Crime No.111 of 2022 Yadamarri Police Station Under Section 7 (B) read with 8 (B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 9. Crime No.131 of 2022 Yadamarri Police Station Under Section 353, 324 IPC 10. Crime No.132 of 2022 Yadamarri Police Station Under Section 34 (1)(i) read with 34(a), (f), 14(2) of AP Excise Amendment Act, 2020 11. Crime No.227 of 2022 Yadamarri Police Station Under Section 307, 324, 427, 354, 448, 506 IPC 12. Crime No.228 of 2022 Yadamarri Police Station Under Section 332, 506 IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act 13. Crime No.144 of 2023 Yadamarri Police Station Under Section 323, 506, 509 IPC 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of detention refers the detenu as ‘Goonda’ as defined under Section 2(g) of the AP Prevention of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. Whereas crimes registered at S.Nos.7, 8 and9 relates to Boot-legging. 4. The learned counsel submits that the first crime registered against the detenu was on 06.04.2015 and crimes were registered in the year 2017, 2018, 2020, 2022 and 2023. Whereas crimes registered at S.Nos.7, 8 and9 relates to Boot-legging. 4. The learned counsel submits that the first crime registered against the detenu was on 06.04.2015 and crimes were registered in the year 2017, 2018, 2020, 2022 and 2023. Two crimes registered in the year 2015, one crime registered in the year 2017 and 2018 have no proximity. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detenu granted bail in all cases. However, the said information was not properly considered by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that irrelevant material is relied upon for passing the order of detention. It is also the stand of the petitioner that order of preventive detention and the material relied by the detaining authority were not supplied to the detenu within the prescribed time. 6. The State in their counter have narrated the details of all cases and their details which were registered against the detenu. Consideration of the Court : 7. The petitioner challenges order of detention on two grounds, that the detenu has been termed as a ‘Goonda’ and that irrelevant material was considered for passing the order of detention. 8. Firstly, the offences other than Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of Indian Penal Code cannot be taken into consideration for bringing a person within the definition of ‘Goonda’ and secondly, it is highly improbable as to which of the offences influenced the mind of the detaining authority to arrive at subjective satisfaction to issue the detention Order. When detention Order is composed, on relevant and irrelevant grounds, it does not survive to the extent of relevant grounds and the entire detention Order falls to ground. 9. The subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention would depend on case to case basis. The authority passing the order of detention has been ensure that the procedural safeguards before passing the detention order ought to be followed scrupulously. 10. 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. 10. 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. 11. Passing an order of detention without appropriate grounds and without reference to the conduct of the detenu would have to be set aside. The detention order must enlist the specific reasons for detaining the detenu which withstand the judicial review and oversight. 12. The officers concerned in proposing and issuing orders of detention are the instrumentalities of the state. It is essential for them to prepare a proper check-list and review each case of detention on its individual merits before proposing the issuance of a detention order. It is a bounden duty of the officer proposing to the competent authority to pass an order of detention against anyone to submit to such authority all and relevant material relating to the offence(s) registered against the proposed detenu. 13. 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. 14. The preamble of the AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities, Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 is as follows ; “An act to provide for preventive detention of bootleggers, dacoits, drug offenders, goondas, immoral traffic offenders and land grabbers for preventing their dangerous activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Whereas public order is adversely affected every now and then by the dangerous activities of certain persons, who are known as bootleggers, dacoits, drug offenders, goondas, immoral traffic offenders and land-grabbers. Whereas public order is adversely affected every now and then by the dangerous activities of certain persons, who are known as bootleggers, dacoits, drug offenders, goondas, immoral traffic offenders and land-grabbers. And whereas having regard to the resources and influence of the persons by whom, the large scale on which, and the manner in which the dangerous activities are being clandestinely organised and carried on in violation of law by them, as bootleggers, dacoits, drug-offenders, goondas, immoral traffic offenders or land-grabbers in the State of Andhra Pradesh and particularly in its urban areas, it is necessary to have a special law in the State of Andhra Pradesh to provide for preventive detention of these six classes of persons and for matters connected therewith”. 15. The Act is enacted keeping in view the necessity of keeping the dangerous elements in the society under detention to deter them from disrupting the public order. However, the purpose of the Act is defeated by the lethargic attitude of the officers concerned in completely disregarding the prescribed safeguards which ought to have been followed before passing the detention orders. 16. The order of detention which is under challenge in the writ petition is evidently passed without considering the factum that the detenu was enlarged on bail in all cases. If that was so, there is no question of obtaining bail in cases as mentioned in the order of detention. 17. The order of detention has considered the detenu as ‘Goonda’, whereas the offences registered against the detenu at S.Nos.7, 8 and 9 in the list of offences pending against the detenu are under the Excise Act. This would imply that the detaining authority has considered irrelevant material for passing the order of detention which is under challenge. 18. The feeble manner in which the order of detention is passed does not withstand the judicial overview and also does not withstand the test of substantive and subjective satisfaction for the detaining authority to pass the order of detention. 19. 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 Rev-CSE0PDL (PRC)/7/2023-MAGL4, Dt.13.09.2023 as permitted by the respondent No.1 vide GORt.No.1110,General Administration (SC.I) Department, Dt.06.06.2023 deserves to be set aside. 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 Rev-CSE0PDL (PRC)/7/2023-MAGL4, Dt.13.09.2023 as permitted by the respondent No.1 vide GORt.No.1110,General Administration (SC.I) Department, Dt.06.06.2023 deserves to be set aside. The other grounds raised by the petitioner need not be gone into as the detention order is found legally defective on the aspect of subjective satisfaction. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the order of detention vide proceedings Rev-CSE0PDL (PRC)/7/2023- MAGL4, DT.13.09.2023 as permitted by the respondent No.1 vide GORt.No.1110, General Administration (SC.I) Department, Dt.06.06.2023 is hereby set aside and consequently the detenu by name Kalikiri Suresh Kumar @ Suresh, S/o.Munaswamy shall be set at liberty, if he is not required in any other case. There shall be no order as to costs. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.