Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Y Maddilety vs The State Of AP
BENCH – THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS
WRIT PETITION No. 712 of 2023
DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 12 MAY 2023
INTRODUCTION –
This case is about the writ petition which is challenging the order of the detention of the brother of the petitioner.
The relevant provision followed in this case are as follows –
A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.
Section – 3 Power to make order detaining certain persons: –
(1) The Government finds if any boot-legger, dacoit, drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or land-grabber is acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and if it is necessary so to do, can make an order directing that such person be detained.
(2) A District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in subsection (1), exercise the powers granted by the said subsection if the Government is of the opinion that doing so is necessary considering any circumstances existing or likely to exist in any area within the local limits of their jurisdiction. The Government may make this determination by issuing an order in writing.
Section – 2(g) Definitions – “Goonda”
A “goonda” is a person who regularly commits, seeks to commit, or aids in the commission of acts punishable under Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII, or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code, whether alone or as a member of or leader of a gang.
FACTS –
As per the learned counsel of the petitioner, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent (The Collector & District Magistrate, Kurnool District )was confirmed by the 1st respondent (State), the petitioner wants to amend the prayer of the writ petition as Yerukali Polenti Satyam, S/o late Y.Devanna, who is now lodged in Central Prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District to be set at liberty/ordered to be released forthwith by declaring the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.
The 2nd respondent, while categorizing the detenue as “Goonda” within the definition of Sections 2(g) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 passed the impugned order of detention.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenue was allegedly involved in fourteen crimes, in which, some of the cases registered due to family disputes and they can be dealt with under general laws and he was already acquitted in five cases which were not even considered by the authority. That the order of detention does not have any material to justify the detenue as goonda and that the preventive detention shall not be passed. The offences alleged against the detenue do not involve any disturbance of public order and the same cannot be used for issuance of preventive detention order under Section 3 of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.
It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that there was absolutely no illegality nor there exists any procedural infirmity in the impugned action and in the absence of the same, the present writ is not maintainable. Even procedural laws were also not strictly followed by the sponsoring authority, while passing the detention orders, which amounts to procedural irregularity as well not following the provisions contained under on perusal of record by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it reveals that a blanket detention order was passed without specifying a period of detention which is invalid as which is mandated under Section 3(2) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.
JUDGMENT –
In this case the court held that the impugned was made without proper application of mind and there was a serious procedural violation. Hence, Hon’ble court was of the opinion that the detenue will not fall under the category of Section 2(g) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. The order of detention does not show any material to justify the allegation that the detenue is a ‘goonda’ whose activities would be actually prejudicial to public order.
The court held that this Writ Petition was allowed setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent and the detenue namely Yerukali Polenti, was directed to be released forthwith by the respondents.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
