Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Manupati Sai Teja 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. 2067 of 2023
DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 12 MAY 2023
FACTS
In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of detention of his mother by name Manupati Eswari, W/o Suresh, aged 34 years, dated 17.08.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent (The Collector and District Magistrate), Bapatla District, which was confirmed by the 1st respondent General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 18.10.2022 and prays to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.
The 2nd respondent District Collector, Bapatla District, while categorizing the detenue as a “Bootlegger” within the definition of Section 3(1) and (2) r/w.2(B) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act 1 of 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) r/w.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, in four cases investigation is completed, charge sheet filed and the detenue was already granted bail in said four cases and among one is bind-over case; that the detenue was not supplied with relevant material by the detaining authorities; that the sponsoring authority did not place the copies of bail orders along with grounds of detention before the detaining authority to come to the right conclusion and that the detention authority erred in passing the impugned order without considering the bail orders.
In the present case also the detenue was already enlarged on bail even prior to detention order and the said fact is not disputed by the respondents. A perusal of the detention order and grounds of detention would show the detaining authority as well sponsoring authority has not taken into consideration.
JUDGEMENT
Having regard to the facts of this case, this 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(1) and (2) r/w.2(B) 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. For the reasons recorded, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the State Government. Consequently, the detenue namely Manupati Eswari, W/o Suresh, aged 34 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.”
