Allowed

Karri Appa Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Apr 2023WP/33406/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a preventive detention order under the A.P. Goondas Act. The Court held that the detenu did not qualify as a 'Goonda' because there was no material substantiating the allegation and no finding on proximity or public order disturbance. The detention order was set aside, and the detenue was directed to be released.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent and confirmed by the State Government is set aside, and the detenue is directed to be released forthwith.

Karri Appa Rao Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.33406 of 2022

¶4

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Srinivas)

¶5

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of detention of his son by name Karri Satheesh @ Satthibabu @ Satheesh @ Satheesh Reddy @ Bujji @ Steephen, S/o.K.Apparao, in order of detention vide REV-Magl./868/2022, dt.14.07.2022 passed by the 2^nd respondent-The Collector & District Magistrate, Tirupati District and confirmed by the 1^st respondent-the State as per G.O.Rt.No.1857, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 06.09.2022 and prays to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.

¶6

The Collector and District Magistrate, Tirupati District, while categorizing the detenue as a “Goonda” within the definition 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 (for short, ‘the Act 1 of 1986’) passed the impugned order of detention. The said order of detention came to be confirmed by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.1857, General Administration (SC.I) Department, 06.09.2022.

¶7

Heard Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Khader Mastan, learned counsel attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

¶8

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of

¶10

detention passed against the detenue basing on 10 cases which are theft cases within span of 12 months in the same area and can be clubbed as per Section 219 of Cr.P.C. and as such the 2^nd respondent passed the order of detention based on the stale and non-existing grounds, thereby the order of detention is liable to be set aside.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that subsequent to 06.09.2021, there is no new case that was registered against the detenue, but after a period of 10 months, the 2^nd respondent passed the preventive detention order for statistical purpose. He further submits that the detaining authority did not supply the relevant material for enabling him to make an effective representation. He further submits that the detenue will not fall under the said criteria (Goonda) and no material is placed either to substantiate or justify the allegation that the detenue is a ‘Goonda’. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.Rani v. Collector & District Magistrate, Y.S.R.District, Kadap¹ , Champion R. Sangma v.State of Meghalaya² , Rizwana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary,

¶12

1 2013(3) ALT 665 (DB)

¶13

2 (2015) 16 Supreme Court Cases 253

¶14

¶15

Amaravathi, Velagapudi, Guntur District³ and Rekha v. State of Tamilnadu⁴ and also the orders passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.26340 of 2018 dated 20.09.2018 and W.P.No.5583 of 2018 dated 02.05.2018 and orders thereon were placed on record.

¶16

On the other hand, reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is submitted by the learned counsel attached to the office of Additional Advocate General that the detenue used to commit thefts from general public and having regard to the gravity of the offenses, which are causing disturbance to law and order and of public order, the orders impugned in the Writ Petition do not warrant any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

In Ram Manohar Lohiya v. State of Bihar⁵ , a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, speaking through M.Hidayathullah,J (as his Lordship then was), explained the difference between disturbance to law and order and that of public order. The Court has explained the whole concept of ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’, by observing that one has to imagine three centric circles wherein law and order

¶18

3 2020(5) ALT 202(D.B)

¶19

42011 (5) SCC 244

¶20

5 AIR 1966 SC 740

¶21

¶22

represents the largest circle, within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents security of the State. The Court has in detail pointed out the difference between the maintenance of law and order and that of public order.

¶23

It is also settled law that when ordinary law is capable of dealing with the alleged prejudicial activities of the detenue, the provisions of preventive detention law cannot be invoked. The executive authority has to keep in mind before the detention order passes that ordinary law will not act as deterrent on the activities of the detenue.

¶24

After considering the above, on perusal of the facts in this case it is clear that there is no finding on the issue of proximity i.e of the detenu committing similar offenses and apparently in between the last date of offense and date of passing of detention order near or about ten(10) months have elapsed . There is no discussion in the impugned detention order as to how the activities of the detenue would affect the “public order” and also of the need or the compelling reasons for invoking the provisions of Act 1 of 1986, when ordinary law is sufficient. Preventive detention cannot be made a substitute for the ordinary law and absolve the investigating authorities of their normal functions of investigating crimes in which detenu may have committed and detention order cannot be used as an instrument to keep a person in perpetual custody. This is settled law.

¶25

¶26

Having regard to the above, in the present case also this court holds that the detenue will not fall under the category enumerated in Section 2(g) of the Act. This Court could not find in the order of detention that the authority passing the order or confirming the same had any material to either substantiate or justify the said allegation that the detenue is a ‘Goonda’.

¶27

Hence for the reasons recorded, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms thereof, setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2^nd respondent vide proceedings in REV-Magl./868/2022, dt.14.07.2022 as confirmed by the State Government vide G.O.Rt.No.1857, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 06.09.2022 and consequently the detenue namely Karri Satheesh @ Satthibabu @ Satheesh @ Satheesh Reddy @ Bujji @ Steephen, S/o.K.Apparao, is directed to be released forthwith by the respondents if the detenue is not required in any other cases.

¶28