Ippili Prakasa Rao v. The District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Srikakulam & Ors.

The District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Srikakulam & others. ….Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 4014 of 2006 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Bilal Nazki) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of detention dated 15th February 2006, detaining the wife of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the detenue’). The detention order is passed in terms of Section 3(1) and (2) read with 2 (a) (b) of A.P.Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In the grounds of detention, the District Collector has referred to eight criminal cases, which were allegedly registered against the detenue. Some of the cases were registered against the detenue under the A.P.Prohibition Act and some of them under the Excise Act. The first case was registered on 10.8.2003. Thereafter, cases were registered on 19.9.2003, 7.11.2003, 25.11.2004, 3.8.2005, 1.9.2005, 8.9.2005 and 28.10.2005. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that most of the cases are too remote to the order of detention in point of time, as order of detention was passed on 15th of February 2006. The first case registered was in 2003, therefore, this case was remote and almost there was a time gap of three years between the first case registered against the detenue and the order of detention. Since these grounds were into consideration by the District Magistrate to record his satisfaction that the detenue was needed to be placed in detention, the detention should be quashed. However, learned Assistant Government Pleader Smt.B.Mohana Reddy, appearing for the Advocate General submits that law has been laid down by the Supreme Court that if there are cases registered, one after another, and there is close proximity between the first case and other cases, with the order of detention, the material considered for detention cannot be termed too remote. In this connection, she relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector & District Magistrate, W.G. District, Eluru v. Sangala Kondamma. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, held that if facts placed before the detaining authority are proximate to each other and the last of the facts mentioned is proximate to the order of detention, then other grounds cannot be treated to be stale grounds. This Judgment was considered by this Court in Doddi Sharada v. Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad, and it came to the conclusion that the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Collector & District Magistrate, W.G. District, Eluru v. Sangala Kondamma (1st supra) was by a 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, which had not taken note of an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Kamalakar Prasad Chaturvedi v. State of M.P., which was by a 3-Judge Bench. In para 12 of this judgment, the Supreme Court held – “The first two incidents which are of 1978 and 1980 are mentioned as grounds of detention in the order dated 6-5-1983. There can be no doubt that these grounds especially Ground No.1 relating to an incident of 1978 are too remote and not proximate to the order of detention. It is not open to the Detaining Authority to pick up an old and stale incident and hold it as the basis of an order of detention under Section 3(2) of the Act. Nor it is open to the Detaining Authority to contend that it has been mentioned only to show that the detenu has a tendency to create problems resulting in disturbance to public order, for as a matter of fact it has been mentioned as a ground of detention. Now there is no provision in the National Security Act, 1980 similar to Section 5-A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 which says that where a person has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention under sub-section (1) of Section 3 which has been made on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds and accordingly (a) such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is or are vague, non-existent, non-relevant, not connected or not proximately connected with such persons or invalid for any other reason and it is not therefore possible to hold that the Government or officer making such order would have been satisfied as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 3 with reference to the remaining ground or grounds and made the order of detention and (b) the Government or officer making the order of detention shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under the said sub-section (1) after being satisfied as provided in that sub-section with reference to the remaining ground or grounds. Therefore, in the present case it cannot be postulated what view would have been taken by the Detaining Authority about the need to detain the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the Act if he had not taken into account the stale and not proximate Grounds 1 and 2 into consideration in arriving at the subjective satisfaction. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner’s detention is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, we quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith.” The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that even if the grounds which were framed are not taken into consideration, still, the detention order has to be upheld, as the grounds which are proximate in point of time were relevant for ordering detention. In this connection she relies on Collector & District Magistrate, W.G. District, Eluru v. Sangala Kondamma (1st supra). Such an argument was also considered by this Court earlier and under the present Act, the grounds are not severable, and as such this plea can also be rejected on the strength of Judgment of Supreme Court in Chaturvedi’s case (3rd supra). For these reasons, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenue shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 10th April 2006 ________________ (BILAL NAZKI, J) __________________ (G.CHANDRAIAH,J)