Petitioner challenging the order of detention of her husband passed by the Collector and District Magistrate in Andhra Pradesh High court.
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Amrutha Durga vs The State Of AP
BENCH – THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS
WRIT PETITION No. 41766 of 2022
DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 12 MAY 2023
FACTS
In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the order of detention of her husband Amrutha Venkayya, S/o Kotaiah, aged 41 years passed by the 2nd respondent (The Collector & District Magistrate), Krishna District, and prays to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.
The Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna District, while categorizing the detenue as a “Bootlegger” within the definition of Section 3(1) and 3(2) r/w.2(a) and 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).
The petitioner filed writ to amend the prayer of the writ petition as ‘to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 4th respondent (the Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram) to produce the detenue viz., Amrutha Venkayya, S./o.Kotaiah, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith by declaring the order of detention as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, against Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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 the detenue was already granted bail in all the six crimes and 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 material.
In the present case, 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 the fact that the detenue was on bail in all those cases and no opinion has been expressed as to whether the preventive detention of detenue was essential or not. No such discussion was made in the order.
JUDGEMENT
In this case the court held that the order impugned was passed without proper application of mind and there was serious procedural violation also. The detenue will not fall under the category of Section 3(1) and 3(2) r/w.2(a) and 2(b) of the Act. This Court could not find that for order of detention the authority had material to either substantiate or justify the said allegation that the detenue is a ‘Bootlegger’ whose activities would be prejudicial to public order.
This hon’ble court for the reasons recorded, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent. The detenue namely Amrutha Venkayya, s/o Kotaiah, aged 41 years, is 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.”