APHC010429412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 21828/2025 Between: 1. M. HEMALATHA,, W/O. M. MURTHY, R/O. D.NO.2-47, VENDUGAMPALLI VILLAGE, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR 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, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA 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 topleased 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 the 4th respondent to produce M. Murthy S/o. M. Munaswamy, who is now detained in Central Prison, Kadapa before this Hon'ble Court and he 2 may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention vide REV-CSEC0PDL(PRC)/2/2025-MAGL4, dt. 19.06.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 1465, dt.06.08.2025 General Administration (Law and Order) Dept., as illegal and un constitutional Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 21828/2025 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the order of preventive detention dated 19.06.2025 passed against the detenu by name M.Murthy @ Sriramurthy @ Remo, S/o.Munaswamy, which in turn was confirmed by the State as per G.O.Rt.No.1465, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 06.08.2025. 2. Heard Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 3. The petitioner is the wife of a person by name M.Murthy (hereinafter referred to as ‘detenu’). About 13 cases were registered against the detenu in various Police Stations. Out of the said 13 cases, 6 cases were registered for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and other 7 cases were registered for the offences punishable under the A.P.Excise Act. Given the fact that about 13 cases were registered against the detenu and he has been frequently indulging in commission of various offences, the sponsoring authority has recommended to pass an order of preventive detention against him to prevent him for committing such offences in future in the larger interest of the public. Considering the material placed by the sponsoring authority and 4 the report submitted by him, the detaining authority was of the view that an order of preventive detention is required to be passed against the detenu to prevent him from committing such offenses as his acts were found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Therefore, the detaining authority has treated him as a ‘Goonda’ as defined under Section 2(g) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) and passed the impugned order of preventive detention. While passing the said order of preventive detention after considering the detenu as a ‘Goonda’, the detaining authority has also taken into consideration the crimes registered against the detenu for the offences punishable under the A.P.Excise Act also. The said order of preventive detention was in turn confirmed by the State vide G.O.Rt.No.1465, dated 06.08.2025. Since then, the detenu has been in detention. 4. The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu seeks to challenge the impugned order of preventive detention on the ground that the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of preventive detention while considering the detenu as ‘Goonda’ has also taken into consideration the irrelevant material relating to the crimes registered against the detenu for the offences punishable under the A.P.Excise Act also and it vitiates the order of preventive detention and renders the said order invalid. 5. Respondent No.2 filed counter-affidavit. Perused the same. 5 6. We have meticulously perused the material on record and considered the same. 7. Admittedly, the detaining authority has passed the order of preventive detention which is impugned in this writ petition while considering the detenu as a ‘Goonda’. Goonda is defined under Section 2(g) of the Act. It is only when a person is found to have committed repeatedly the offences punishable under the Chapters of the Indian Penal Code mentioned in the Section be termed as ‘Goonda’. If a person is found to have committed the offences punishable under the A.P.Excise Act, he will not come within the definition of ‘Goonda’ as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act. If a person is found to have committed the offences punishable under the A.P.Excise Act, he is considered to be a ‘Bootlegger’ under the Act. Law is well settled that while passing an order of preventive detention considering a person as a ‘Goonda’ relating to commission of the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code if the offence committed by him under the A.P.Excise Act which relating to bootlegging activity is also taken into consideration, then it amounts to taking irrelevant material also into consideration for passing an order of preventive detention and it makes the order of preventive detention invalid and the impugned order will be vitiated on that ground and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. This Court in W.P.No.19145 of 2023 while relying on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.Prasad Reddy v. 6 Collector and District Magistrate, Anantapur 1 and also in the case of Thallapuneni Venkateswarlu v. Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddapah 2, wherein it is held that the crime which does not satisfy the definition of ‘Goonda’, cannot be made basis for passing an order of preventive detention on the ground that the detenu is a Goonda under the Act, held that the order of preventive detention impugned therein is not valid and the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly, has set aside the same as per the order dated 04.10.2023. 9. The Apex Court also in the case of Khaja Bilala Ahmed v. State of Telangana and others 3 held that when irrelevant material is taken into consideration, the order of preventive detention cannot be sustained. It is clearly held in the said judgment that the satisfaction to be arrived at by the detaining authority must not be based on the irrelevant and invalid grounds. 10. Therefore, in view of the law enunciated in the aforesaid judgments, as the detaining authority, in the instant case also has based his order on irrelevant material by taking into consideration the crimes relating to A.P.Excise Act also for the purpose of treating the detenu as a ‘Goonda’ for passing an order of preventive detention, the impugned order of preventive detention is not valid under law and it cannot be sustained. 11. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order of preventive detention dated 19.06.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent - 1 2005 (3) ALT 487 2 2004 (5) ALT 250 3 (2020) 13 SCC 632 7 Collector & District Magistrate, Chittoor District, which in turn, was confirmed by the 1st respondent-State vide G.O.Rt.No.1465, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 06.08.2025 against the detenu is hereby set aside. The detenu, by name M.Murthy @ Sriramurthy @ Remo, shall be released 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: 24.02.2026 KA 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 21828/2025 Date: 24.02.2026 KA