WP/20763/2004 of G.V.Subba Rao, Vs The Collector and District Magistrate, on 28 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI

and THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU

WRIT PETITION NO : 20763 of 2004

Between:

G.V.Subba Rao, S/o Gajja Jyothi,aged about 32 years, Employee, R/o Mattam Bazaar, Jaggaiapet Town, Krishna District.

AND

..... PETITIONER

The Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna District at Machilipatnam.

.....RESPONDENT

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 a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofHabeas Corpus and direct the production of the detenue by name Sri Gajja Jyothi,S/o Namalaiah before this Hon'ble Court and after declaring that the order ofdetention passed by the respondent in Rc.no.2622/2004/C1, dated 26-09-2004 isillegal, the said Sri Gajja Jyothi, S/o Namalaiah be set at liberty.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.ELLA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent : THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

The Court at the admission stage made the following :

ORDER: (Per Sri BN.J)

This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging thedetention of his father Gajja Jyothi, hereinafter referred to as the detenu, who hasbeen detained by the Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna District underSection 3(1) & (2) read with Section 2(a) & (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention ofDangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, ImmoralTraffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

Counter has been filed and we have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Various contentions were urged by both the counsel and by an order of thisCourt dated 6.12.2004, the matter had been referred to a Full Bench along withsome other matters. When the matter came up before the Full Bench, learnedcounsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not going to attack the detention orderon the ground, which was the subject matter of the reference before the Full Bench;rather he would attack the order of detention on various other grounds. Therefore,this writ petition was directed to be deleted from the batch and accordingly it waslisted before us.

One of the grounds urged by the counsel is that the District Magistrate hadtaken some other material into consideration which was not made available to thedetenu. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the followingassertions made in the grounds of detention.

“There are several oral complaints received against you about theillegal activities of yours are causing wide spread danger topublic health and creating a feeling of insecurity among the general public of that locality. If your activities are allowedunchecked there is every danger of its leading to LiquorTragedies costing many lives of poor people in Jaggiahpeta townand its surroundings and thereby effects the public order.”

There is nothing on record to show that the detenu was informed about the nature ofthe oral complaints when the grounds of detention were communicated to him. Sincethe District Magistrate has taken some material into consideration before coming tothe subjective satisfaction for detaining the detenu, which is not made available tothe detenu, his rights under Article 22 of the Constitution of India have got prejudicedand as such the detention cannot be upheld.

Accordingly, the impugned detention order is quashed and the detenu is directed tobe set at liberty forth with if not required in any other case.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

28..12..2004

To