| Headnote |
Issue for consideration: Whether the Division Bench of the HighCourt rightly declined to interfere with the order of preventive detentionpassed against the appellant detenu by the District Collector in exerciseof his powers u/s. 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of DangerousActivities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Off enders, Goondas, ImmoralTraffi c Off enders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,Dacoits, Drug Off enders, Goondas, Immoral Traffi c Off endersand Land Grabbers Act, 1986 – s. 3(2) – Preventive detention – Appellantindulging in distributing, storing, transporting and selling ID Liquorwhich causes huge damage to the public health as well as public peaceand tranquility – Order of preventive detention passed by the DistrictCollector in exercise of powers u/s. 3(2) – High Court upheld thedetention order – Correctness:Held: It cannot be said that the detention order passed for 12 months ata stretch could be termed as without jurisdiction and contrary to the mandateof sub-section (2) of s. 3 – Period as mentioned in s. 3(2) refers to the periodof delegation of powers and it has no relevance at all to the period for whicha person may be detained – Period of three months stipulated in Art. 22(4)(a) is relatable to the initial period of detention up to the stage of receipt ofreport of the Advisory Board and does not have any bearing on the periodof detention, which is continued subsequent to the confirmatory order being passed by the State Government on receipt of the report of the AdvisoryBoard – Furthermore, detaining authority specifi cally stated in the groundsof detention that selling liquor by the detenu and the consumption by thepeople of that locality was harmful to their health – Such statement is anexpression of his subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu isprejudicial to the maintenance of public order – Thus, no error of law in theimpugned judgment of the High Court. [Paras 23, 38, 71 and 72]Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,Dacoits, Drug Off enders, Goondas, Immoral Traffi c Off endersand Land Grabbers Act, 1986 – s. 3(2) – Interpretation:Held: s. 3(2) has nothing to do with the period of detention – s. 3(2)is with respect to the delegation of powers by the State Government uponthe District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police, as the case may be,for exercise of powers u/s. 3(2) – Period as mentioned in s. 3(2) refers tothe period of delegation of powers by the State Government and it has norelevance at all to the period for which a person may be detained – Thus, s.3(2) provides that if the State Government is satisfi ed having regard to thecircumstances prevailing in any area within the local limits of the jurisdictionof a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, it is necessary toempower the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, as the casemay be, to exercise the powers of the State Government to order detentionof a person as provided by sub-section (1), then the State Government mayby an order in writing direct that during such period as may be specifi ed inthe order, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police may also,if satisfi ed as provided in sub-section (1) exercises the powers of the StateGovernment as conferred by sub-section (1) – Proviso to sub-section (2)thus, has nothing to do with the period of detention of a detenu – Maximumperiod of detention is prescribed u/s. 13 which lays down that the personmay be detained in pursuance of any detention order made under the Actwhich has been confi rmed u/s. 12. [Paras 23, 26, and 39]Constitution of India – Art. 22(4)(a) – Relevance of Art. 22(4)(a):Held: Reading of Art. 22(4)(a) would clearly indicate that no lawproviding for preventive detention shall authorize the detention of a personfor a period beyond three months – Thus, an order of detention cannot be fora period longer than three months unless, the Advisory Board has reportedbefore the expiration of the said period of three months that there is, in its opinion such suffi cient cause for detention – If the Advisory Board does notgive its opinion within a period of three months from the date of detention, insuch a case, the order of detention beyond the period of three months wouldbecome illegal and not otherwise – If within the period of three months, theAdvisory Board opines that there was no suffi cient cause for such detentionthen, the State Government would have to release the detenu forthwith –Thus, Art. 22(4)(a) in substance deals with the order of detention and hasnothing to do with the delegation of the power of detention by the StateGovernment to an Offi cer as stipulated u/s. 3(2) – Period of three monthsstipulated in Art. 22(4)(a) is relatable to the initial period of detention upto the stage of receipt of report of the Advisory Board and does not haveany bearing on the period of detention, which is continued subsequent tothe confi rmatory order being passed by the State Government on receipt ofthe report of the Advisory Board – Continuation of the detention pursuantto the confi rmatory order passed by the State Government need not alsospecify the period of detention; neither is it restricted to a period of threemonths only – If any period is specifi ed in the confi rmatory order, then theperiod of detention would be upto such period, if no period is specifi ed,then it would be for a maximum period of twelve months from the date ofdetention – State Government need not review the orders of detention everythree months after it has passed the confi rmatory order. [Paras 41–44]Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,Dacoits, Drug Off enders, Goondas, Immoral Traffi c Off endersand Land Grabbers Act, 1986 – Preventive detention – Appellantindulging in distributing, storing, transporting and selling ID Liquor– Four FIRs against detenu, if suffi cient to arrive at a subjectivesatisfaction that activities of detenu as a boot-legger is prejudicial tothe maintenance of public order:Held: For determining the connection of ground of detention with themaintenance of public order, the object of detention, is not an intrinsic qualityof the act but rather its latent potentiality – Thus, for determining whetherthe ground of detention is relevant for the purposes of public order or not,merely an objective test based on the intrinsic quality of an act would notbe a safe guide – Potentiality of the act has to be examined in the light ofthe surrounding circumstances, posterior and anterior for the off ences underthe Prohibition Act – Just because four cases have been registered against the detenu under the Prohibition Act, by itself, may not have any bearingon the maintenance of public order – If the liquor sold by the detenu isdangerous to public health then under the Act 1986, it becomes an activityprejudicial to the maintenance of public order, thus, it becomes necessaryfor the detaining authority to be satisfi ed on material available – Detainingauthority specifi cally stated in the grounds of detention that selling liquor bythe detenu and the consumption by the people of that locality was harmful totheir health – Such statement is an expression of his subjective satisfactionthat the activities of the detenu is prejudicial to the maintenance of publicorder – Not only that, the detaining authority also recorded his satisfactionthat it is necessary to prevent the detenu appellant from indulging furtherin such activities and this satisfaction has been drawn on the basis of thecredible material on record. [Paras 64, 65 and 71]Preventive Detention – Essential concept – Discussed. [Paras 16and 17]Preventive Detention – Concept of ‘law and order’ and ‘publicorder’ – Distinction between. [Para 64]Writ of Habeas Corpus – Purpose – Discussed. [Paras 21 and 22] |
