Manjula Lalitha vs State Of AP & Others

V. Srinivas, J

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of detention of her husband Manjula Naveen @ Vadde Manjula Naveen @ Naveen, S/o Manjula Lakshumaiah @ Lakshmanna @ Lakshmaiah, 27 years, in order of detention vide Rc.No.MC1/3699/2022 dated 02.02.2023 passed by the 3rd respondent-The District Collector Ananthapuram District and prays to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.

The petitioner herein, who is wife of detenue, in her petition stated that detention orders were passed against her husband, on the ground that he is “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). It is further stated in the petition that since the activities of the detenue are dangerous and prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, apart from disturbing the peace, tranquility, social harmony/order in the society, the 3rd respondent-The District Collector, Ananthapuram District is said to have passed the impugned order of detention dated 02.02.2023.

Counter-affidavit is not filed by the respondents.

Heard Sri Chukkapalli Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Syed Khader Mastan, learned counsel attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detaining authority passed the detention order basing on eight criminal cases, which are relating to property disputes between individuals; that in all the above cases, the detenue was granted bail and if he violates the conditions of bail, respondent Nos.4 to 6 would file petition for cancellation of bail, no such petition is filed by the respondents; that since the cases are technical in nature like trespass and criminal intimidation, the said cases can be dealt with under the ordinary law and they do not involve any disturbance of public order and detenue will not come within the definition of ‘goonda’ under Section 2(g) of the Act and that there is no necessity to pass the detention order, which is in sheer violation of the Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. In support of the said contentions, he relied on the judgments in Sama Aruna v. State of Telanagana 2017(2) ALD (Cri)(SC) 388, Mallada K Sri Ram v. The State of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 358.

In S.M.D.Kiran Pasha v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1990) 1 Supreme Court Cases 328, the Apex Court at para No.29, held as follows:

“ …….Thus Section 10 makes it mandatory for the Government to place the ground on which the order has been made and the representation, if any made by the person affected by the order and in the case where the order has been made by an officer also the report by officer under sub-section (3) of Section 3. This section prescribes a period of three weeks from the date of detention irrespective of whether the person continues to be in detention or not. Therefore, even though the detenu was released, if the detention order was in force, his case was required to be placed before the Advisory Board. This being a mandatory provision and having not been complied with the detention order even if otherwise it was in force, cannot be said to have been in force after three weeks. Under Article 22 of the Constitution of India a person cannot be kept in detention beyond three months without referring his case to an Advisory Board under the appropriate law. In either case the appellant's case having not been referred to an Advisory Board the detention order cannot be said to have remained in force after the statutory period. It is, therefore, not necessary to go into the validity or otherwise of the grounds of detention”.

It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.30649 of 2022, dated 06.03.2023.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is absolutely no illegality in the order nor is there any procedural infirmity in the impugned action and in the absence of the same, the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable.

Admittedly, the cases that were registered against the detenue are with regard to the property disputes between the individuals. The fact that in almost all the cases bail was granted to the detenue is not denied either. Yet this important aspect was not considered in the impugned detention order. This by itself vitiates the order of detention. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rekha v. State of Tamilnadu 2011 (5) SCC 244, it was held that 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. These factors are missing in the impugned orders. The alleged offences are under the penal laws only.

As held by the Apex Court, the further satisfaction required to be recorded in such circumstances is also conspicuously absent in the detention order. These two factors vitiate the entire order of detention. On perusal of the record, last crime registered against the detenue was on 02.08.2022 and detention order was passed on 02-02-2023. In between there are no offenses said to have been committed by the detenue and no proximate cause was mentioned by the respondents in their order that detenue may commit similar offenses.

A perusal of the order dated 06.03.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.30649 of 2022 clearly demonstrates that this Court discussed the law laid down in Gattu Kavitha v. State of Telangana 2017(1) ALD Crl.224, Rushikesh Thanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharastra (2012) 2 SCC 72 and three judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court in Rekha v. State of Tamilnadu 2011 (5) SCC 244 case, in which the Apex Court held as follows:

“The detaining authority was not even aware whether a bail application of the accused was pending when he passed the detention order, rather the detaining authority passed the detention order under the impression that no bail application of the accused was pending, but in similar cases bail had been granted by the courts. We have already stated above that no details of alleged similar cases have been given. Hence, the detention order in question cannot be sustained”.

After considering the above, this Court allowed W.P.No.30649 of 2022 granting relief in favour of the petitioner.

In the instant case also, the detenue will not fall under the category of Section 2(g) of the Act since this Court could not find in the order of detention that there is any material to either substantiate or justify the allegation that the detenue is a ‘Goonda’.

Hence, we deem it appropriate to allow the present writ petition.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order of detention passed by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.MC1/3699/2022 dated 02.02.2023. Consequently, the detenue namely Manjula Naveen @ Vadde Manjula Naveen @ Naveen, S/o Manjula Lakshumaiah @ Lakshmanna @ Lakshmaiah, 27 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.

Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.