G.V.Subba Rao v. The Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna District at Machilipatnam
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 28 Dec 2004
- Bench
- BILAL NAZKI, G YETHIRAJULU
Outcome
Quashed
Accordingly, the impugned detention order is quashed and the detenu is directed to
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 22, 226
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus and direct the production of the detenue by name Sri Gajja Jyothi, S/o Namalaiah before this Hon'ble Court and after declaring that the order of detention passed by the respondent in Rc.no.2622/2004/C1, dated 26-09-2004 is illegal, the said
Sri Gajja Jyothi, S/o Namalaiah be set at liberty. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.ELLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court at the admission stage made the following :
ORDER:
(Per Sri BN.J) This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the detention of his father Gajja Jyothi, hereinafter referred to as the detenu, who has been detained by the Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna District under Section 3(1) & (2) read with Section 2(a) & (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. Counter has been filed and we have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Various contentions were urged by both the counsel and by an order of this Court dated 6.12.2004, the matter had been referred to a Full Bench along with some other matters. When the matter came up before the Full Bench, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not going to attack the detention order on the ground, which was the subject matter of the reference before the Full Bench; rather he would attack the order of detention on various other grounds.
Therefore, this writ petition was directed to be deleted from the batch and accordingly it was listed before us. One of the grounds urged by the counsel is that the District Magistrate had taken some other material into consideration which was not made available to the detenu. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the following assertions made in the grounds of detention.
There are several oral complaints received against you about the illegal activities of yours are causing wide spread danger to public health and creating a feeling of insecurity among the general public of that locality. If your activities are allowed unchecked there is every danger of its leading to Liquor Tragedies costing many lives of poor people in Jaggiahpeta town and its surroundings and thereby effects the public order.
There is nothing on record to show that the detenu was informed about the nature of the oral complaints when the grounds of detention were communicated to him.
Operative part
Since the District Magistrate has taken some material into consideration before coming to the subjective satisfaction for detaining the detenu, which is not made available to the detenu, his rights under Article 22 of the Constitution of India have got prejudiced and as such the detention cannot be upheld. Accordingly, the impugned detention order is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forth with if not required in any other case. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
28..12..2004 To
The Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna District at Machilipatnam
2 CCs to the Advocate General, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad (OUT) 3 2 CD copies
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the impugned detention order is quashed and the detenu is directed to
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 22, 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 28 Dec 2004. The bench was BILAL NAZKI, G YETHIRAJULU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.