Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as the Act 1 of 1986. - Goonda - Detention orders are passed - challanged - their lordships held that the Detaining Authority when order is passed on series of offences , he has to consider whether the detenu is on bail in more than several cases - whether charge sheets are filed -else the detaining authority could be misled into believing that in spite of filing of the charge sheets, the respective detenu did not mend his ways in spite of having been involved in several cases. - detention orders are liable to be quashed on that ground as well.-2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports





The mother of the detenu is the petitioner herein and seeks a
Mandamus to declare the detention order dated 27.08.2014 passed by
the second respondent, as confirmed  he is a goonda
within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention
of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits,
Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Ofby the first respondent under
G.O.Rt.No.3405 General Administration (Law and Order) Department
dated 10.10.2014 as illegal and unconstitutional and seeks
consequential release of the detenu Mr. Vikram Mehandi alias Vikram.

the detenu was detained on the ground thatfenders and Land
Grabbers Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as the Act 1 of 1986.
The detention order was stated to have been reviewed by the Advisory
Board on 26.09.2014 satisfying itself that there is sufficient cause for
detention. 
Accordingly, the Government confirmed the order of
detention and issued the aforesaid G.O., detaining the petitioner for a
period of 12 months from the date of detention i.e. 01.09.2014.
The order of detention served on the detenu shows that there are
20 instances from 02.08.2012 to 14.07.2014 wherein the involvement
of the detenu was shown in 10 instances.
In para 4 of the affidavit, the
petitioner has narrated the manner in which and the place from where
the detenu was taken into custody by the Task Force Police and it is
alleged that the detenu was later shown to have been involved in
various offences while he was away at Myanmar and not in India.

1.      The order of detention passed by the second
respondent is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the
Officer, who passed the order, was only an in-charge
District Collector in the absence of regular Collector
and District Magistrate and as such, under Section
3(2) of the AP Act 1 of 1986 only the officer delegated
with power by the State Government viz. the Collector
and District Magistrate could have passed the
detention order and not by an officer, who is merely
holding the post as in-charge.

2.      The detention order and the material in support
thereof, which was furnished to the detenu was in
English and Telugu languages whereas the detenu is
conversant only with Hindi language and the in the
absence of the translation of the said documents in
Hindi language, the detenu has lost a valuable right of
making a representation against the detention.

In my view, it was absolutely essential for the detaining authority to
have been apprised of all the relevant facts and particularly, where a
series of criminal cases against the detenu form the basis of the
grounds of detention. It was, therefore, imperative for the detaining
authority to be apprised of the fact that the respective detenu was
released on bail in more than one crime listed in the grounds, as that
would, inter alia, lead to an inference that a competent criminal Court
has chosen to enlarge on bail rather than holding the detenu in
custody. 
whether the investigation is in preliminary stage or
whether the charge sheet is filed is also relevant information required
to be apprised to the detaining authority and/or else the detaining
authority could be misled into believing that in spite of filing of the
charge sheets, the respective detenu did not mend his ways
in spite of having been involved in several cases.
Obviously, in none
of the cases, the charge sheets are filed and the assumption of the
detaining authority in that respect to the contrary clearly vitiates the
detention order. In my view, therefore, point No.3 also has to be
answered in the affirmative and the respective detention orders are
liable to be quashed on that ground as well..-2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports


Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS