WP/22111/2004 of R.Srirama Reddy Vs The Collector and District Magistrate, on 30 December 2004

1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner for issuing a writ ofHabeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing therespondents to produce the detenu Sri R. Chinta Ram Mohan Reddy, nowdetained in Central Prison, Cherlapalli before this Court and to order hisrelease forthwith.

2. The petitioner is the brother-in-law of the detenu Sri Chinta Ram Mohan Reddy. The first respondent passed an order ofdetention on 18-9-2004 under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Preventionof Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug offenders,Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) on theground that he is a “goonda” and he is acting in a manner prejudicial to themaintenance of public order. The detenu was directed to be detained onthe basis of five incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention. IncidentNo.1 relates to an offence occurred on 11-5-1995, incident No.2 relates toan offence occurred on 19-8-1997, incident Nos.3 and 4 relate to theoffences occurred on 26-7-2002 and incident No.5 occurred on 6-2-2004.The learned senior counsel Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy submitted that theorder of detention was mechanically passed without application of mind onvague, irrelevant and non-existing grounds and in flagrant violation of the

3.

4. provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, therefore, the orderof detention is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that incidents 1and 2 relate to 1995 and 1997, therefore, they are stale incidents. Therewas no proximity in time between the dates of the offences and the orderof detention to provide a rational nexus between the incidents relied uponand the satisfaction arrived at. Therefore, they cannot be treated asjustifiable grounds for passing an order of detention. He further submittedthat the fifth incident is nothing but opening a rowdy sheet against thedetenu, therefore, it cannot be treated as a ground for passing the order ofdetention and it is an irrelevant ground. Even if one ground is irrelevant,the entire order of detention has to be quashed as it is not possible to sayas to which ground weighed with the detaining authority. He alsosubmitted that the detaining authority failed to furnish the copies of thedocuments relating to the grounds of detention, therefore, it is a clearviolation of the mandatory provision of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution ofIndia. He therefore requested to quash the order of detention by declaringthat it is illegal and void.

The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit mentioning that sincethe detenu is habitually committing the offences covered by the incidentsand as he is a dangerous and desperate person and as the ordinaryprovisions of Penal Code are not having any deterrent effect, the detenu islikely to repeat the violent acts in future, therefore, the order of detentionhas been passed and it is sustainable under law.

The learned Advocate General drew the attention of this Court to alatest judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector and DistrictMagistrate, W.G. District, Eluru, Andhra Pradesh and others v.Sangala Kondamma, which was delivered on 9-12-2004 in Criminal Appeal No.1451 of 2004 arising out of S.L.P.(Cri)No.5341 of 2003, wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with theprovisions of Act 1 of 1986 held that if the incidents are proximate to eachother, the fact that initial few incidents are not proximate to the order ofdetention would not make the order of detention bad.

5. In the case on hand, incident No.1 was on 11-5-1995 and thearrest of the detenu was made on 19-8-1997. Incident No.2 relates to1997. These two incidents were five years earlier to incidents 3 and 4.Though incidents 1 and 2 were proximate to each other, they were notproximate to incidents 3 and 4. There is more than two years gap betweenincidents 3 and 4 and the date of the order of detention, therefore,incidents 3 and 4 are also not proximate to the date of the order ofdetention. Incident No.5 is not relevant to the other incidents. The learnedcounsel for the petitioner rightly pointed out that incident No.5 does notrelate to any of the offences punishable under Chapters XVI, XVII andXXII of the Indian Penal Code, therefore it is an irrelevant ground. In viewof so much gap between incidents 1 and 2 and incidents 3 and 4, theycannot be treated as proximate to each other and incidents 3 and 4 arealso not proximate to the date of the order of detention, therefore, theprinciple laid down by the Supreme Court in Sangala Kondamma (1supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. We, therefore,have no hesitation to hold that there is no proximity in time between thedates of one incident to the other and the last incident to the date of orderof detention to provide a rational nexus between the incidents and theorder of satisfaction arrived at by the District Magistrate. The stale andirrelevant incidents cannot be construed as justifiable grounds for passingthe order of detention. We, therefore, hold that the order of detention is notsustainable in the eye of law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Theorder of detention dated 18.9.2004 passed against the detenu is quashed.The concerned authorities are directed to release the detenu forthwith, ifhe is not required in any other case.

____________

(BILAL NAZKI, J)

_______________________

(Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J)

30[th] December 2004.

Svs

…. REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

To