WP/20493/2004 of Nallana Lakshmana Murthy, Vs The District Collector, on 30 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BILAL NAZKIand THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU

WRIT PETITION NO : 20493 of 2004

Between:

Nallana Lakshmana Murthy, S/o. Saradhi,R/o. Palasa, Srikakulam District.

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 The District Collector, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam.

2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3 The Superintendent of Central Prison, Visakhapatnam.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue any appropriate Writ of Habeas Corpus under Art 226 of the Constitution ofIndia directing the respondents to produce the detenu Sri Nallana Rama Rao S/o.Late Murali, now detained in Central Jail, Visakhapatnam, before this Hon'ble Courtand he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention asillegal and void.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.VISWANADHAM

Counsel for the Respondents: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

The Court made the following:

HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI

AND

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU

WRIT PETITION NO.20493 OF 2004

ORAL ORDER (Per Dr.GYR,J):

This is a writ of Habeas Corpus filed by the petitioner under Article 226of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to causeproduction of the detenu Sri Nallana Rama Rao now detained in Central Prison,Visakhapatnam, before this Court and to order his release forthwith.

2. The petitioner is the co-brother of the detenue. The first respondent passedan order on 06.10.2004 under Sections 3 (1) and (2) read with Section 2(a) (b)of A.P.Prevention of Dangerous Activities and Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (1/86) onthe ground that the detenu was involved in committing offences of illicit storage,transportation and sale and organization of excise crime in contravention ofSection 8 (e) read with 7 (a) of the A.P. Prohibition Act and the said order waspassed with a view to prevent grave/widespread danger to life and public healthand to maintain the public order.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri M.Viswanadham submitted that thedetaining authority has passed the order of detention mechanically withoutapplication of mind on vague, irrelevant and non-existing grounds and the sameis liable to be quashed. The detaining authority relied on two incidents dated29.05.2003 and 11.06.2004 as grounds of detention and pleaded that there is norational nexus between the incidents referred to above and the satisfactionarrived at by the detaining authority. He further submitted that the first incidentdated 29.05.2003 is not proximate to the second incident. The learned counselfor the petitioner further submitted that as there is a mention in the report of theanalyst that the contraband in both the grounds is only illicit distilled liquor andas there is no mention that the said I.D. Liquor is injurious to health and unfit forhuman consumption, the order of detention is liable to be quashed.

4. The learned Advocate General resisted the petition and submitted that thegrounds mentioned in the order are valid, therefore, the order is sustainableunder law.

5 . The first incident mentioned in the grounds of detention was dated29.05.2003. The second incident was dated 11.06.204. There was more thanone-year gap between the two incidents, therefore, the first incident has to betreated as stale. Though the second incident is proximate to the date of theorder of detention on account of the staleness of the first incident, the order ofdetention cannot be sustained. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in TheCollector and District Magistrate, West Godavari District, Eluru, Andhra

Pradesh and others v . Sangala Kondamma which was delivered on09.12.2004 in Crl.A.No.1451 of 2004 arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No.5341 of 2003, if the incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention are proximate toeach other, the fact that initial incidents are not proximate to the order ofdetention would not make the order of detention bad.

6 . But in the case on hand, the first incident is not proximate to thesecond incident. The order of the detention passed by the first respondentindicates that the order was passed by taking into consideration both thegrounds at the time of satisfying that there are sufficient grounds for orderingdetention. Had the incident No.1 been incorporated in the grounds of detention,the detaining authority would have arrived at a different conclusion. But due toinclusion of incident No.1, the detaining authority came to a conclusion that thisis a fit case for detention.

7. We therefore, hold that the order of detention is not sustainable underlaw. The aspect whether the prosecution has to establish that the I.D. Liquor isinjurious to health is under consideration of a Full Bench of this Court,therefore, we do not wish to express any opinion on this aspect in this writpetition.

8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order of detention dated06.10.2004 is quashed. The Concerned authorities are directed to release thedetenue forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

----------------------

BILAL NAZKI, J

30[th] December 2004 ------------------------------- SKM Dr. G.YETHIRAJULU, J

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.

Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this Thursday the 30[th] day of December, Two thousand and Four.

To

1 The District Collector, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam.

2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3 The Superintendent of Central Prison, Visakhapatnam.

4 2CCs to the Advocate General, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT)

5 2CD copies

REGISTRAR

HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI

AND

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU

WRIT PETITION NO.20493 OF 2004

Dated: 30.12.2004