Allowed

Samasani Rama Devi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jun 2023WP/3995/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court allowed a writ petition challenging a preventive detention order against Samsani Satish. The Court quashed the order passed under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers Act, 1986, finding serious procedural violations, lack of application of mind, and failure to consider the petitioner's bail orders.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention passed by the Collector and confirmed by the State Government was set aside. The detenue is directed to be released forthwith.

Samasani Rama Devi Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶4

I.A.NO.2 OF 2023

¶5

IN/AND WRIT PETITION No.3995 of 2023

¶6

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

¶7

Initially, in this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the order of detention of her husband by name Samsani Satish, S/o.Satyanarayana, aged 35 years, vide Roc.No.C1/e34778/2022, dated 12.01.2023 passed by the 2^nd respondentThe Collector and District Magistrate, Eluru District and prays to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.

¶8

Since the said detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent was confirmed by the 1^st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.441 General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 03.03.2023, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2023 to amend the prayer in the writ petition as “the Order of Detention by way of G.O.Rt.No.149, dated 20.01.2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 is nothing but unlawful, untenable and unsustainable under law, since they were made in utter violation of the Principle of Natural Justice and in utter violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India”.

¶9

¶10

In view of the confirmation orders and same is challenged in this writ petition by filing application vide I.A.No.2 of 2023, thus, the same is allowed and the prayer of the writ petition is ordered to be amended as prayed for.

¶11

The 2^nd respondent District Collector, Eluru 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 (for short, ‘the Act 1 of 1986’) passed the impugned order of detention. The same was confirmed by the 1^st RespondentState.

¶12

Heard Sri Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Syed KhaderMastan, learned counsel attached to the office of learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

¶13

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(B) r/w.8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 and they can be dealt under general laws. It is also stated that the detenue was already

¶14

¶15

granted bail in all the four crimes; 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 as well not assigned any reasons for its satisfaction in confirming the detention order.

¶16

Despite of opportunities, no counter filed by the respondents. However, Sri Syed KhaderMastan, learned counsel attached to the office of Additional Advocate General submits that the detenue is a habitual offender and his acts are prejudicial to the public order and that he is a bootlegger who is selling adulterated liquor. He further states that the order impugned in the writ petition do not warrant any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

The law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in several cases, clearly demonstrates that the existence of element of disturbance to the public order is held to be a sine qua non for invoking the provisions of Section 3 of the Act 1 of 1986. The said power, conferred on the authorities, is required to be exercised with a lot of care, caution and circumspection and that same cannot be exercised in a routine and mechanical

¶18

¶19

manner. While deciding the facts and law by this Curt in Chittipothula China Muthyalu case (W.P.No.5469 of 2022) , considered the rule position stated by Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Manohar Lohiya v. State of Bihar¹ , Piyush Kanthilal Mehatha v. Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City² , Malladha K.Sriram v. State of Telangana³ , held that the satisfaction, as stipulated under Section 3 of the Act, should necessarily be a subjective satisfaction but is required to be on the basis of cogent and convincing material and not on the foundation of stale and sterile reasons. Recording of reasons for such satisfaction is also indispensable and imperative. So long as ordinary criminal law is adequate to deal with the offences, preventive detention without subjecting an individual to the procedure of free and fair trial would infringe the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Chapter III of Constitution of India. The alleged offences are under the Prohibition laws only.

¶20

In the present case also, recording of reasons for such satisfaction is not at all taken into consideration. That the detenue was already enlarged on bail in all the four crimes even

¶21

1 AIR 1966 SC 740

¶22

2 1989 Supp (1) SCC 322.

¶23

3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 424

¶24

¶25

prior to detention order is not noticed 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 the said fact and no opinion has been expressed as to whether the preventive detention of detenue was essential or not, and no such discussion was made in the order. Further it is not the case of the respondents that the detenue has committed breach of conditions of the bails. The further satisfaction that needs to be recorded in such cases that he will commit further crimes is not clear. It is not clear how the authority came to the conclusion that the ordinary law is not sufficient to prevent the detenue to commit similar crimes. Moreover, inspite of opportunities given, the State did not file any counter denying the case of the petitioner.

¶26

Having regard to the facts of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion 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

¶27

¶28

‘Bootlegger’ whose activities would be actually prejudicial to public order.

¶29

For the reasons recorded, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2^nd respondent vide proceedings in Roc.No.C1/e-34778/2022, dated 12.01.2023 as confirmed by the State Government vide G.O.Rt.No.441, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 03.03.2023. Consequently, the detenue namely Samsani Satish, S/o.Satyanarayana, aged 35 years, is directed to be released forthwith by the respondents if the detenue is not required in any other cases. No order as to costs.

¶30