IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.28803 of 2014 BETWEEN Kondampalli Swapna.
AND ... PETITIONER Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, General Administration (Law and Order) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. B. MOHANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General.
2. Petitioner, wife of the detenu, has questioned the impugned order of detention under G.O.Rt.No.2940 General Administration (Law & Order) Department dated 23.08.2014 passed by the first respondent confirming the order of the second respondent dated 27.06.2014.
The order of detention passed by the second respondent is made under Section 3(1) & (2) read with Sections 2(1) and 2 (g) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) and various reasons are set out therein in support of the said order.
3. However, order impugned is questioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the said order of detention is passed on the ground that the detenu is creating terror among people along with his henchmen and creating law and order problem. Elsewhere in the order, though it is mentioned that the activities of the detenu are a source of potential danger to the public well being and prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and his case is best fit in the provisions of the AP Act 1 of 1986.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a specific contention that with respect to the aforesaid ground in support of the writ petition that the detention referred to is not as if the activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order but on the contrary the activities are creating law and order problem, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is not a ground on which such detention order could be passed under the AP Act 1 of 1986.
5. Counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, states with reference ground 5 (b) of the grounds of the writ petition, that “ … the detaining authority has arrived at subjective satisfaction by taking into account 13 crimes registered against the detenu.
The contention that 13 incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention do not form adequate material to pass the order of detention and that the order of detention has been passed in a causal manner for extraneous reasons, is without any basis and the said contention is not open for the petitioner.”
6. It would, thus, be noticed that the specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not contraverted in the counter nor it is stated that the said order is passed not on the ground of affecting law and order problem but on the ground of prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the Act.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme
[1]
Court in RAM MOANOHAR LOHIA v. STATE OF BIHAR where similar order of detention passed on the ground that it is prejudicial to the public safety and maintenance of law and order was held to be not in conformity with the mandate of law viz. Rule 30(1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1960, which are similar to requirement under Section 3(1) of the Act 1 of 1986, was interpreted by the Supreme Court. It was, therefore, authoritatively held by the Supreme Court that the order, which is not in terms of the requirement of law is illegal and it was further held that law and order and public order are entirely different concepts and the law requires to be strictly implemented.
8. Learned Advocate General fairly accepts that the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court squarely applies to the present case so far as the aforesaid aspect raised in this writ petition.
9. Since the writ petition is liable to succeed on the question, as mentioned above, all other contentions of the petitioner are kept open.
10. Hence, on the touchstone of the ratio of the Supreme Court in RAM MOANOHAR LOHIA’s case (1 supra), the order impugned cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 21, 2014
Note: Registry to communicate the order to the third respondent by Speed Post.
(B/o) DSK
[1] ARI 1966 SC 740