ORDER : Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. Challenging the legal validity of the order of preventive detention dated 12.08.2025 passed by the 2 nd respondent - Collector & District Magistrate, Eluru District, against the husband of the petitioner, by name Vaditya Ramadasu (hereinafter referred to as ‘detenu’), which, in turn, was confirmed by the State as per G.O.Rt.No.2002, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 29.10.2025, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. M.P.V.N.V. Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents. 3. Brief overview of the facts leading to the passing of the impugned order of preventive detention against the detenu may be stated as follows: (i) About six crimes were registered against the detenu for the offences punishable under the A.P. Prohibition Act. All those cases were registered against him on the ground that he has been indulging in the manufacture and sale of illicitly distilled liquor, which is injurious to the health and life of the public. The petitioner was enlarged on bail in all the said crimes. In some crimes, he was enlarged on regular bail after his arrest and in some crimes, anticipatory bail was granted to him. During the course of investigation of the said crimes, samples of the liquor that was found to be in possession of the detenu at the time of his arrest in the crimes were sent by the police to the chemical analyst for examination. The chemical analyst, who examined the said samples of liquor, found that it is illicitly distilled liquor and it is unfit for human consumption and injurious to public health. The test to which the liquor was subjected to arrive at an opinion that it is illicitly distilled liquor and unfit for human consumption and injurious to public health yielded positive result, as ethyl alcohol, fusel oil and allied impurities are found in the said liquor. (ii) Therefore, considering the conduct of the detenu in repeatedly indulging in commission of the said offences which are injurious to the health and life of the public, the sponsoring authority was of the opinion that the detenu has to be detained preventively in order to prevent him from committing similar offences in future, as his acts are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Therefore, he has placed his report before the 2 nd respondent – detaining authority along with the orders of bail and other relevant material to pass an order of preventive detention against the detenu. (iii) The 2 nd respondent has considered the material placed before him by the sponsoring authority, including the orders of bail, and after recording his subjective satisfaction that the material placed before him revealed that the detenu has been indulging in bootlegging activities and that the detenu is habituated to commit the offences relating to manufacture and sale of illicitly distilled liquor, which is unfit for human consumption and which is injurious to public health, was of the opinion that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and an order of preventive detention is required to be passed against him to prevent him from committing the similar nature of offences in future in the larger interest of public. Therefore, the 2 nd respondent has passed the impugned order of preventive detention dated 12.08.2025 against the detenu. The State, in turn, after considering the order of preventive dentition passed by the 2 nd respondent, has confirmed the said order of preventive detention as per G.O.Rt.No.2002, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 29.10.2025. 4. The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, has now questioned the legal validity of the impugned order of preventive detention on the sole ground that even if the detenu is found to be involved in bootlegging activities by manufacturing illicitly distilled liquor and selling the same, it, at best, amounts to affecting the maintenance of law and order and it cannot be construed as an act prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which is required under law to pass an order of preventive detention. 5. Reiterating the said ground urged in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner also sought to contend before us that when the detenu is found to be indulged in committing bootlegging activities, it, at best, amounts to causing prejudice to the maintenance of law and order and it will not amount to committing an act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, as required under law for passing an order of preventive detention. Therefore, he would submit that the impugned order of preventive detention is not valid under law and thereby, prayed to set aside the impugned order on the said ground. 6. We are unable to accede to the said contention. The law is now well settled that when a person is found to be indulging in manufacture and sale of illicitly distilled liquor, which is unfit for human consumption and dangerous to the public health and life, the said act committed by the said person would certainly amount to an act which is causing prejudice to the maintenance of public order. As noticed supra, when the liquor that was found in possession of the detenu was sent for examination by a chemical analyst, he found, after examination, that the said liquor is illicit distilled liquor and it is unfit for human consumption and it is hazardous to the life and health of the public. 7. The Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh had an occasion to deal with the legal position in this regard in the case of Doddi Sharada v. Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad District , 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 408 (AP) (FB). . In fact, earlier, in the case of Boya Chinna Subbarayudu v. The Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool,  (1995) 1 ALT (Cri) 58, where an order of preventive detention was passed on the ground that the detenu was in possession of fermented wash and illicit distilled liquor and the report of the chemical analyst disclosed that the test for ethyl alcohol, test for sugars and test for fusel oil yielded positive result, a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh has taken a view that unless it is stated in the report of the chemical analyst that the seized liquor contained fusel oil in impermissible limits so as to cause grave or widespread danger to life or public health, the detaining authority is not justified in ordering the detention on the ground that the detenu is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The said judgment was subsequently followed in many cases and the orders of preventive detention were set aside by the Coordinate Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The said judgment was subsequently followed in many cases and the orders of preventive detention were set aside by the Coordinate Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Ultimately, one of those judgments that were passed following the judgment rendered in the case of Boya Chinna Subbarayudu was referred to the Full Bench. Considering the correctness of the law laid down in Boya Chinna Subbarayudu’s case, the Full Bench, in the above Doddi Sharada’s case, held as follows: “27. In the light of all these judgments, it is clear that what is necessary for the District Magistrate for arriving at a subjective satisfaction on the basis of the material before him is that the activities of the person are prejudicial to maintenance of public order. In terms of explanation to Section 2(a) public order would also mean a danger to public health and if the Public Analyst, on a seized sample, was of the opinion that it is not potable or was not fit for human consumption, that in our view, is relevant material for the purpose of arriving at subjective satisfaction. In our view, it is not necessary that the percentages of different constituents of the sample should be mentioned by the Public Analyst. Even if a Public Analyst gives the composition of all the ingredients of the sample without mentioning whether the sample was fit for human consumption or not, it may not be possible for the District Magistrate to know as to whether the sample was injurious to health or not. Basically, it is the opinion of the Public Analyst, which is paramount in determining whether the liquor that was being sold, stored or manufactured, would cause danger to public health.” 8. Thus, the Full Bench held, after considering all the judgments rendered on the point earlier by way judicial precedents, that what is necessary for the District Magistrate for arriving at a subjective satisfaction on the basis of the material placed before him is that the activities of the person are prejudicial to maintenance of public order. Thus, the Full Bench held, after considering all the judgments rendered on the point earlier by way judicial precedents, that what is necessary for the District Magistrate for arriving at a subjective satisfaction on the basis of the material placed before him is that the activities of the person are prejudicial to maintenance of public order. It is held that in terms of Explanation to Section 2(a) of the Act, public order would also mean a danger to public health and if the Public Analyst, on examination of a seized sample, was of the opinion that it is not potable or is not fit for human consumption, then it is a relevant material for the purpose of arriving at subjective satisfaction and it is not necessary that the percentages of different constituents of the sample should be mentioned by the Public Analyst. It is held that even if a Public Analyst gives the composition of all the ingredients of the sample without mentioning whether the sample was fit for human consumption or not, it may not be possible for the District Magistrate to know as to whether the sample was injurious to health or not. Ultimately, it is held that it is the opinion of the Public Analyst, which is paramount in determining whether the liquor that was being sold, stored or manufactured would cause danger to public health or not. Therefore, the reference was answered in terms mentioned hereinabove. So, as per the law enunciated and settled by the Full Bench, it is clear that bootlegging activity of manufacturing illicit liquor and selling the same would certainly be construed as an act prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Therefore, the contention of the leaned counsel for the petitioner that it can be construed as an act of violation of law and order only and not as an act prejudicial to the public order holds no water. 9. After considering the impugned order passed by the detaining authority, which is based on relevant material on record and after recording the subjective satisfaction on the basis of the material available on record, we do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the order to hold that the impugned order is not valid as per law. 9. After considering the impugned order passed by the detaining authority, which is based on relevant material on record and after recording the subjective satisfaction on the basis of the material available on record, we do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the order to hold that the impugned order is not valid as per law. The petitioner could not make out any case to impeach the legal validity of the impugned order of preventive detention warranting our interference in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition lacks merit and it is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, affirming the impugned order of preventive detention. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed.