Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Veeranki Lakshmi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
BENCH – THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS
WRIT PETITION No. 5334 of 2023
DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 12 MAY 2023
INTRODUCTION
In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of detention of her husband by name Veeranki Rambabu, S/o Pedalaxmayya, aged 38 years dated 19.12.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent- The Collector and District Magistrate, West Godavari District, which was confirmed by the 1st Respondent (THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH) and prays to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.
The 2nd respondent (District Collector), West Godavari District, while categorizing the detenue as a “Bootlegger” within the definition of Section 3(2) r/w.3(1) 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. The same was confirmed by the 1st Respondent (State).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of detention was passed basing on vague, irrelevant, and non-existing grounds, that the offences alleged against the detenue is under Section 7(A) and 7(B) r/w.8(B) and 8(E) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 and they can be dealt under general laws. It is also stated that out of five crimes, the detenue was already granted bail in four crimes and in one crime he was issued Section 41(a) Cr.P.C. notice. The detention authority erred in passing the impugned order without considering the bail orders.
JUDGEMENT
In this case the court held that the order impugned was made without proper application of mind and there is a serious procedural violation. The detenue will not fall under the category of Section 3(2) r/w.3(1) of the Act and this Court could not find that the order of detention has any material to either substantiate or justify the said allegation that the detenue is a ‘Bootlegger’ whose activities would be actually prejudicial to public order.
In this case court allowed this Writ Petition, setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent. The detenue namely Veeranki Rambabu, S/o.Pedalaxmayya, aged 38 years, was directed to be released forthwith by the respondents if the detenue is not required in any other cases.
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.”
