Judgment:
C.V.N. Sastri, J
1. In this writ petition an order of detention dated 8-8-1996 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada, detaining one Vasireddy Peddiraju under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is under challenge.
2. In the order of detention it is stated that the detenu is organising a racket of bootlegging in and around Ravulapalem village and is smuggling Indian made liquor like brandy, whisky which are prohibited as per the provisions of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and thereby he has indulged in acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order through dangerous activities. The order sets out the details of a number of cases in which the detenu was involved, and states that with a view to preventing him from further acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the detaining authority is satisfied that the provisions of the Act should be invoked to detain him. Accordingly he was detained and lodged in the Central Prison at Rajahmundry.
3. In the grounds of detention it is stated that the detenu is not a licensee or a holder of any permit to deal in any kind of liquors under the provisions of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and the A.P. Excise Act, that he has been indulging in clandestine movement and import of I.M.L. into East Godavari District for sale in violation of the provisions of A.P. Prohibition Act and the A.P. Excise Act and acting as a bootlegger as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act in a prejudicial manner to the maintenance of public order as defined under Section 2(a) read with Explanation given under the said Section of the Act. The details of six crimes in which the detenu was involved are also set out in the grounds of detention. It is further stated that the samples of liquor seized in those cases were sent for chemical analysis and on analysis they were found to be Indian made liquor as per the report of Government Chemical Examiner for Excise, Kakinada. All the said cases are still pending investigation. It is finally stated in the grounds of detention that since the culmination of criminal prosecution against the detenu under the normal process of law will take a long time, it may not be sufficient to immediately prevent the detenu from indulging in the same prejudicial activities and, therefore, the detaining authority is satisfied that he should be detained under the provisions of the Act with a view to preventing the detenu from further acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and smuggling of I.M.L. into East Godavari District as mentioned above in a manner which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
4. The order of detention is challenged, inter alia, on the grounds that the detenu is a respectable and law abiding citizen, that he is innocent, that he is falsely implicated in the said cases, that he has been enlarged on bail in all those cases and that, in any case, the order of detention is illegal and unsustainable inasmuch as the alleged activities of the detenu are not, in any way, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is further contended that inasmuch as the chemical analysis report does not reveal the presence of any substance in the samples of liquor seized in the above cases which is hazardous or injurious to public health or safety, the order of detention is not sustainable. The order is also bad in law as it does not mention the period of detention. In support of the said contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions : B. C. Subbarayudu v. District Collector, (1995) 1 Andh LT (Cri) 58 and K. Chinnappa Reddy v. District Collector, (1995) 1 Andh LT (Cri) 454.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent-detaining authority, it is stated that the Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, East Godavari District, Kakinada, submitted a report dated 7-8-1996 to the first respondent stating that the detenu has been regularly indulging in bootlegging activity and acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, that the detenu is involved in six cases the details of which are mentioned in the grounds of detention, basing on the said information the order of detention has been passed after going through the entire material and after being satisfied that the detenue comes within the definition of 'bootlegger' and that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The allegation that the detenu is a businessman and law-abiding citizen and that he is falsely implicated in the above cases is denied in the counter-affidavit and it is asserted that the detenu is a taxi-driver and he has been indulging in clandestine activities of smuggling liquor from other States and importing the same to the East Godavari District without possessing any licence under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act to deal in intoxicants. It is finally submitted that the order of detention is perfectly valid and justified and it has been also confirmed by the Government in G.O.Rt. No. 4569 General Administration (Law and Orders - III) Department, dated 19-8-1996.
6. 'Bootlegger' is defined by Section 2(b) of the Act in the following terms :
''Bootlegger' means a person, who distills, manufactures, stores, transports, imports, exports, sells or distributes any liquor, intoxicating drug or other intoxicant in contravention of any of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and the rules, notifications and orders made thereunder, or in contravention of any other law for the time being in force, or who knowingly expends or applies any money or supplies any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance of any receptacle or any other material whatsoever in furtherance or support of the doing of any of the above mentioned things by himself or through any other person, or who abets in any other manner the doing of any such thing.'
In B. C. Subbarayudu v. District Collector, (1995 (1) Andh LT (Cri) 58) (supra), it is held as follows :
'Everyone who answers the description of bootlegger cannot be detained preventively under the Act. The detaining authority must be satisfied that the detention is necessary with a view to preventing the person concerned from acting in any manner 'prejudicial to the maintenance of public order' (vide Section 3(1)). The words 'acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order' are defined by Section 2(a) as meaning 'when a boot-legger, a dacoit, a goonda, an immoral traffic offender or a land-grabber is engaged or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as such, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order'. The explanation to clause (a) of Section 2 says :
'For the purpose of this clause public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely, or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely inter alia, if any of the activities of any of the persons referred to in this clause directly, or indirectly, is causing or calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life or public health.'
It is, therefore, clear that a person who is a boot-legger by reason of his indulging in acts in contravention of the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, the rules and the notifications and the orders made under that Act cannot be detained under Section 3(1) of the Act unless the acts in which he is indulging affect or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. In other words only if the activities of the boot-legger cause 'grave widespread danger to life or public health' he can be detained. If a boot-legger sells illicitly distilled arrack which contains harmful substance, certainly he can be detained on the ground that his activities constitute grave danger to life or public health.
The question to be considered is whether selling of illicit arrack itself is an act which constitutes a grave or widespread danger to life or public health. In our view the answer must be in the negative; unless the arrack illicitly sold contains substances which constitute grave danger to life or public health no order of detention can be issued under Section 3 of the Act.'
7. In K. Chinnappa Reddy v. District Collector, (1995 (1) Andh LT (Cri) 454) (supra), it has been held that where the report of the analyst does not show that the arrack is containing any harmful substance and where the detaining authority has not mentioned in the grounds of detention that the arrack seized from the detenu, if consumed, would result in danger to life, the order of detention is not legal. Admittedly in the instant case, the chemical examiner's reports do not show that the samples of the liquor alleged to have been seized from the detenu contain any substance which is harmful or injurious to life. In the grounds of detention also, there is no such allegation. Further the alleged activities of the detenu in smuggling and selling Indian made liquor cannot be said to be per se prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in the Act. There is a well recognised distinction between the expression 'public order' and 'law and order' as explained in a catena of decisions of the Apex Court. An activity is said to affect public order only when it affects the public at large and disturbs the even tempo of life of the community as a whole. A mere disturbance of law and order or a stray act in violation of the law cannot be held to be subversive of public order. The alleged activities of the detenu in clandestinely smuggling in and selling liquor cannot be said to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in that sense though it may amount to the violation of the provisions of the Prohibition Act and the Excise Act. See : 1966CriLJ608 , : 1970CriLJ1136 , : 1992CriLJ702 .
8. It must, therefore, be held that the impugned order of detention is illegal and unsustainable. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 8-8-1996 as confirmed by the Government in G.O.Rt. No. 4569 General Administration (Law and Order-II) Department, dated 19-8-1996 is set aside. The detenu Vasireddi Peddiraju son of Satyanarayana, who is now detained in the Central Jail, at Rajahmundry, shall be set at liberty forthwith if his presence is not required in connection with in any other case.
9. Petition allowed.