APHC010377412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 19064/2025 Between: 1. DARAPU BASHEER, W/O. DARAPU DURGA AGED 34 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 10-4-6, DASARI VARI VEEDHI, RANGREEJUPETA, RAJAMUNDRY URBAN, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, RAJ AMUNDRY. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the constitution of India directing 2 the 4th respondent to produce Darapu Durga, who is now detained in Central Prison, Rajamundry. East Godavari District before this Hon'ble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention vide REF.NO.Ml/521506/2025, dt. 01.05.2025, passed by the 2 respondent which was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 1211,dt.20.06.2025 General Administration (Law and Order) Dept., as illegal and un constitutional and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KADIYAM NEELAKANTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL 3 The Court made the following ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Challenging the legal validity of the order of preventive detention, dated 01.05.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent-District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, East Godavari District against a person by name Darapu Durga (hereinafter referred to as „detenu‟), which in turn, was confirmed by the 1st respondent – State vide G.O.Rt.No.1211, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 20.06.2025, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu. 2. Heard Sri Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 3. Brief overview of the facts leading to filing of this writ petition may be stated as follows: About nine (9) crimes were registered against the detenu in various Police Stations. Five (5) crimes are relating to the offences punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, three (3) crimes registered against him are relating to the offences punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”) and one crime registered against him is relating to the offence punishable under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 (for short “the APP Act”). On the ground that the detenu 4 has been indulging himself in commission of various crimes repeatedly and his acts in committing the said offences are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the 2nd respondent – detaining authority was of the view that an order of preventive detention is required to be passed against the detenu to maintain public order and tranquility. Therefore, the 2nd respondent, considering the detenu as a „Goonda‟ as defined under Section 2(g) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has passed the impugned order of preventive detention against him. After complying with the procedural prescriptions of law, the 1st respondent- Government has affirmed the said order of preventive detention vide G.O.Rt.No.1211, dated 20.06.2025. Pursuant to the said order of preventive detention and the Government Order confirming the said order, the detenu has been in the custody from 03.05.2025. 4. The writ petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, filed this writ petition assailing the legal validity of the impugned order on the ground that the detaining authority has also taken three crimes relating to the offences punishable under the NDPS Act which come under the definition of “Drug offender” and one crime relating to the offence punishable under the APP Act which comes under the definition of “Bootlegger” also for the purpose of passing the impugned order of preventive detention. 5 5. The learned Government Pleader filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents. 6. According to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detaining authority has only considered the detenu as Goonda on account of five crimes registered under the provisions of the Indian Penal code and he has taken the three crimes relating to the NDPS Act and one crime relating to the APP Act also in arriving at the conclusion that the detenu comes under the definition of “Goonda” and he has taken irrelevant material relating to the NDPS Act and the APP Act also for the purpose of terming him as “Goonda” and it makes the impugned order of preventive detention not valid and on that ground the impugned order of preventive detention is liable to be set aside. 7. The legal position in this regard, when irrelevant material is also taken into consideration for the purpose of passing an order of preventive detention, whether it vitiates the order of preventive detention and makes it invalid or not is not res integra and the same has been well settled by now. 8. A Coordinate Bench of this High Court has dealt with the issue elaborately with reference to the earlier decided case law on the said legal position. In Annam Venkatakrishnaraju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others1, the Division Bench of this High Court clearly held that taking an 1 2021 SCC OnLine AP 355 6 irrelevant ground as the basis for passing the order of preventive detention would vitiate the said order of detention and the same is liable to be set aside on that ground. In that case also about 11 crimes were registered against the detenu therein and 10 crimes pertain to the offences which satisfies the definition of „Goonda‟ under Section 2(g) of the Act and one crime out of the said 11 crimes, did not fall within the definition of „Goonda‟ under Section 2(g) of the Act and it attracts only the definition of the Bootlegger. Therefore, the Court found that taking the said crime also which does not satisfy the definition of „Goonda‟ as the basis for passing the impugned order of preventive detention, is not valid and thereby, this Court has set aside the said order of preventive detention. The Division Bench has relied on the earlier judgment rendered on the point in arriving at the said conclusion decided in the case of S.Prasad Reddy vs. Collector and District Magistrate, Anantapur2 and in the case of Thallapuneni Venkateswarlu vs. Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddapah3, wherein it is also held that the crime which do not satisfy the definition of „Goonda‟, cannot be made basis for passing the order of preventive detention on the ground that the detenu is a Goonda under the Act. 9. Considering the above three judgments, this Court again in W.P.No.19145 of 2023 has taken the same view and has set aside the order of preventive detention. 2 (2005) 3 ALT 487 3 (2004) 5 ALT 250 7 10. If the validity of the impugned order of preventive detention in this case, is decided on the touchstone of the aforesaid law decided by the Coordinate Benches of this High Court, certainly the impugned order of preventive detention falls foul of the law laid down in the above judgments. In the present case also, as noticed supra, the detaining authority has passed the impugned order of preventive detention terming the detenu as a Goonda on account of the fact that five crimes are registered against the detenu for the offences punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. But, at the same time, he has also taken into consideration the three crimes registered under the NDPS Act and one crime registered under the APP Act which only satisfy the definition of the “Drug Offender” and “Bootlegger” and not the “Goonda”. So, taking the other four crimes which is irrelevant material for the purpose of passing the impugned order of preventive detention clearly makes the order of preventive detention invalid. 11. Therefore, in view of the settled law and the ratio laid down in the above cited judgments, the impugned order of preventive detention is clearly unsustainable under law and the same is liable to be set aside. 12. In fine, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order of preventive detention, dated 01.05.2025 passed by respondent No.2, which in turn, was confirmed by respondent No.1-State vide G.O.Rt.No.1211, GAD (SC-I) Department, dated 20.06.2025 against the detenu by name Darapu Durga, who is the husband of the petitioner. The detenu shall be released 8 forthwith and he shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 25.11.2025 KA 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 19064/2025 Date: 25.11.2025 KA