Shaik Shikinder vs The Govt. of A.P. and Others

Ramanujulu Naidu, J.—This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus to produce before this Court the body of the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the detenu, after quashing the order dated 6th January, 1991 passed by the Second Respondent directing detention of the petitioner in the District Jail, Secunderabad, for a period of six months initially in exercise of the powers conferred upon him u/s 3 (1) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act 1 of 1986, hereinafter referred to as the Act, read with G.O. Rt. No. 4647, General Administration (General-A) Department, Government of A.P. dated 21st December, 1990 and to set him at liberty forthwith. The impugned order of detention reads that with a view to preventing the detenu from committing dangerous activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, he was sought to be detained u/s 3 (1) of the Act. Section 3 (1) of the Act can only be invoked if the detaining authority is satisfied that the detenu answers the description of a Boot Legger or a Dacoit or Drug-Offender or a Goonda or an Immoral Traffic Offender or a Land-Grabber and not otherwise. Unfortunately, in the impugned order of detention the detenu is not branded as one of the persons covered by Section 3 (1) of the Act. In other words, there is no satisfaction of description of any type of persons covered by Section 3 (1) of the Act recorded by the detaining authority. The impugned order of detention is, therefore, per se had and liable to be quashed. In this view, it is unnecessary to advert to the grounds of detention served upon the detenu. We accordingly quash the impugned order of detention dated 6th January, 1991 passed by the second respondent and direct the respondents to set the detenu at liberty forthwith. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.