Golusu Nanaji Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Challenging the legal validity of the order of preventive detention dated 19.05.2025 passed by the detaining authority - Collector & District Magistrate, Kakinada District, which, in turn, was confirmed by the State by G.O.Rt.No.1229, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 25.06.2025, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶33

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

¶34

3. The petitioner is the son of the detenu, by name Golusu Lakshmi. About five crimes were registered against her for the offences punishable under A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. As she has been indulging in commission of the said illegal acts of manufacturing and selling illicitly distilled liquor repeatedly, the 2^nd respondent – Collector & District Magistrate of Kakinada District, who

¶35

4

¶36

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.20871 of 2025

¶37

is the detaining authority under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, was of the opinion that her acts in repeatedly indulging in commission of the said offences are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and hazardous to the health and life of the public. He was also of the opinion that an order of preventive detention is to be passed against her to prevent her from committing such offences in future in the larger interest of public. Therefore, he has passed the impugned order of preventive detention dated 19.05.2025 against her. After complying with the procedure prescribed under law and after the matter was referred to the advisory board, the said order of preventive detention was confirmed by the 1^st respondent - State as per G.O.Rt.No.1229 dated 25.06.2025. Pursuant to the said order of preventive detention, the detenu has been in detention since 20.05.2025.

¶38

4. The petitioner, who is the son of the detenu, sought to assail the legal validity of the said order of preventive detention on the ground that legible copies of the material placed before the detaining authority were not supplied to the detenu to enable her to make a valid and

¶39

5

¶40

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.20871 of 2025

¶41

effective representation before the advisory board and it vitiates the order of detention.

¶42

5. In addition to the said ground pleaded in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner further contends at the time of hearing that in four cases that were registered against the detenu, she was enlarged on bail and all those bail orders were placed before the detaining authority at the time of passing the order of detention, but subsequent to the order of detention, she was enlarged on bail in the other case and the said order of bail was not placed before the confirming authority and it vitiated the order of confirmation.

¶43

6. So far as the second ground is concerned, no such plea has been taken in the pleadings in the writ petition. It is not pleaded that bail was granted to the detenu in the other case also after the order of detention was passed by the detaining authority and that the said bail order was not placed before the confirming authority before passing the order of confirmation. Therefore, when no such plea was taken in the writ petition and when no factual foundation is laid in the pleadings regarding the said plea, the said plea cannot be considered now for the purpose of testing whether the order of confirmation passed by the

¶44

6

¶45

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.20871 of 2025

¶46

State is valid or not. The contention sans plea to that effect in the writ petition cannot be considered.

¶47

7. As regards the other ground urged by the petitioner in the writ petition that the legible copies of the material relied upon by the detaining authority for passing the order of detention were not supplied to the detenu is concerned, we have gone through the copies of the material papers supplied to the detenu, which are now placed before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As can be seen from the said copies of the documents, they are very much legible and it cannot

¶48

be said under any stretch of reasoning that they are not legible and that the detenu had no opportunity to make effective representation before the advisory board. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek to impeach the impugned order of detention on the said ground that legible copies of the documents were not supplied to the detenu. So, we do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of detention which, in turn, was confirmed by the confirming authority. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶49

8. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

7

¶51

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.20871 of 2025

¶52

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this

¶53

case shall stand closed.

¶54

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY