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 by 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 that 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 Offenders 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



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.