C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. - (1.) The wife of the detenu under order in Rc. No.164/2015/P &E/MBD/B2, dt.29.6.2015 of respondent No.2 filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to produce the detenu and set him at liberty, by declaring the order in G.O. Rt. No.2326, General Administration (Law & Order) Department, dt.22.8.2015 of respondent No.1 whereby it has confirmed the detention order of respondent No.2, as illegal. BACKGROUND
(2.) The detenu is a resident of Narsampet Village and Mandal, Warangal District. He is accused in as many as seven criminal cases, all registered for the offence under Section 7(A) read with Section 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 (for short, 'the Prohibition Act'). The gravamen of the charge against the detenu in all these cases is that he is engaged in the activity of a bootlegger, as defined under Section 2(b) of Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, 'the PD Act'). Based on the information placed before him, respondent No.2 has passed order dt.29.6.2015, in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) and (2) of the PD Act ordering detention of the detenu. The said order along with the grounds of detention was served on the detenu informing him that he can make a representation before the Advisory Board constituted for this purpose and the same was approved by respondent No.1 vide G.O. Rt. No.1885 General Administration (Law & Order) Department, dt.8.7.2015. The detenu has submitted his representation before the said Advisory Board constituted under the PD Act which has reviewed the case on 31.7.2015 and forwarded its opinion dt.01.8.2015 to respondent No.1 to the effect that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. Following the said advise, respondent No.1 has confirmed the detention order passed by respondent No.2 and directed the detention of the detenu for a period of twelve months from the date of his detention, i.e., 29.6.2015. Feeling aggrieved by these orders, the wife of the detenu filed this writ petition.
(3.) Smt. Vakati Karuna, the Collector and District Magistrate, Warangal District, filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is inter alia stated in the counter affidavit that the detenu has been indulging in clandestine movement and possession, sale and transport of Illicitly Distilled Liquor (ID liquor), and transportation, possession and sale of the main ingredients to prepare the ID liquor, such as black jaggery, alum, and he is the kingpin of this line of clandestine business being carried on in contravention of the Prohibition Act and the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short, 'the Excise Act'). That in connection with the detenu's illegal activities, the following cases were registered against him. 1. "COR No.404/2013 -14, dated 4.7.2013 U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Narasampet of Warangal District. 2. COR No.408/2013 -14, dated 4.7.2013 U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Narasampet of Warangal District. 3. COR No.693/2013 -14 dated 24.8.2013 U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Narasampet of Warangal District. 4. COR No.1383/2013 -14, dated 18.2.2014 U/sec 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Narasampet of Warangal District. 5. COR No.1405/2013 -14, dated 2.2.2014 U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act,1995 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Narasampet of Warangal District. 6. COR. No.277/2014 -15, dated 31.5.2014 U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Narasampet of Warangal District. 7. COR. No.1369/2014 -15, dated 19.1.2015 U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Narasampet of Warangal District." It is further pleaded that as the registration of the cases is not deterring the detenu from indulging in unlawful activities affecting public order, invocation of the provisions of the PD Act was necessitated. It is further averred that in spite of registration of the crimes and his arrest, the detenu after coming out on bail has been habitually committing similar such offences which are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and that it is the duty of the enforcing government agency to keep such persons under stringent check by invoking the PD Act, failing which they are likely to indulge in similar activities, which are detrimental to public order. It is further pleaded that the samples seized from the detenu in connection with all the criminal cases were found as 'illicitly distilled liquor and unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.' SUBMISSIONS OF THE;