Anakala Maddileti Vs. Govt. A.P., Home Department, Hyderabad and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
criminal - smuggling - section 2 (g) of andhra pradesh prevention of dangerous activities of bootleggers, dacoits, drug offenders, goondas, immoral traffic offenders and land grabbers act, 1986 - petitioners assaulted forest officials while smuggling forest materials - forest officials forming part of general public - petitioners disturbing public order by felling and smuggling of trees and other forest materials causing ecological imbalance - petitioners obstructing forest officials from discharge of their duties - held, petitioners rightly termed as 'goondas' under section 2 (g) and detention valid. - - rest house with lethal weapons like swords, knives, sticks and guns, and severely injured v. c1-325/m/99 dated 11-2-1999. according to this petitioner, the order of detention was.....ordermotilal b. naik, j.1. in all thesewrit petitions the orders passed by the detaining authorities ordering the detention of the detenus are questioned on various grounds and consequently a writ of habeas corpus is also sought directing the production of the detenus before this court and set them at liberty and pass appropriate orders.2. as the question involved in all these writ petitions is the detention order passed by the detaining authorities under section 3(2) read with section 3(1) of a.p. prevention of dangerous activities of boot leggers, dacoits, drug offenders, goondas, immoral traffic offenders and land grabbers act, 1986 (for short 'act 1 of 1986') all these writ petitions are therefore taken up together and are being decided by this common order.3. few facts relating to.....

Judgment:
ORDER

Motilal B. Naik, J.

1. In all thesewrit petitions the orders passed by the detaining authorities ordering the detention of the detenus are questioned on various grounds and consequently a writ of habeas corpus is also sought directing the production of the detenus before this Court and set them at liberty and pass appropriate orders.

2. As the question involved in all these writ petitions is the detention order passed by the detaining authorities under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(1) of A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short 'Act 1 of 1986') all these writ petitions are therefore taken up together and are being decided by this common order.

3. Few facts relating to each writ petition are stated as under : WP No. 6375 of 1999 : One Telaga Maddileti son of Chinnaiah a resident of Chinna Develapuram village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District has alleged that one Telaga Jayanna, son of Maddileti aged about 25 years a resident of Chinna Devalapuram village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool district was ordered to be detained by the orders passed by the second respondent in RCC 408/ M/99 dated 19-2-1999 which order was served on the detenu on 21-2-1999. Pursuant to the detention order passed by the second respondent the detenu Jayanna was arrested and sent for detention to Central Jail, Secunderabad on 21-2-1999. According to the petitioner, in the order of detention it was mentioned that the detenu is a person of notorious activities of timber smuggling and assaulting forest officials and as such he is being detained under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(1) of the Act 1 of 1986.

4. The grounds of detention are :

(l) On 25-5-1996 around 8.30 a.m. the detenu along with 8 to 10 smugglers got down from the cart which he was driving in TCP canal locality within N.R. Kunta Section and attempt to assault forest personnel and assaulted one Malta Rcddy, the Forester with sticks. On this incident a case has been registered by the police in Cr. No.59/ 96 of Bands Atmakur P.S. under Sections 353, 324 and 379 IPC and the case is pending in the Court as CC 322 of 1996.

(2) On 16-10-1996 at 4.00 p.m. when one V. Balachari, Forester, GBM range and his staff were patrolling, the detenu along with 17 followers forcibly drove a 14 carts loaded with teak timbers by threatening forest staff and a police case was registered in Cr. No. 106/96 of Bandi Atmakur P.S. under Sections 353, 332 and 379 IPC. (3) On 30-10-1996 at 3.00 p.m. while one Jaffar Hussain and his staff were patrolling about 60 smugglers with 30 carts obstructed the forest staff on duty and forcibly managed to escape. The detenu was identified among them and a case in Cr.No.110/96 ofBandi Atmakur P.S. was registered under Sections 144, 353 506 and 379 IPC and a case is pending in CC 86/97. (4) On 14-2-1999 the detenu along with 20 smugglers attempted to murder the train party staff including Ahmad Ali Khan, Forest Range Officer and they attacked the protection party at G.B.M. Rest House with lethal weapons like swords, knives, sticks and guns, and severely injured V. Ramudu and assaulted other members of protection party of Nandyal Forest Division and a case was lodged in Cr. No.5/99 of Bandi Atmakur P.S. under Sections 332, 307 and 506 IPC.

5. The petitioner alleged that on the above grounds the second respondent came to the conclusion that the detenu is a notorious smuggler of timber and also a goonda within the meaning of Section 2(g) of Act No.1 of 1986 acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of legitimate duties of forest officials within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the said Act which has necessitated for ordering detention to prevent him from indulging in the unlawful smuggling activities of timber and assaulting the forest officials.

6. The petitioner has alleged that the alleged activities of smuggling of timber cannot be brought under the purview of Section 2(a) of the Act No.1 of 1986 and that the detenu cannot becategory as a 'goonda'. It is further alleged that the order of detention is based on stale grounds and that any order of detention based on stale grounds cannot be sustained. It is further alleged that the grounds mentioned in the order of detention do not necessitate exercising of powers under Section 3(2) of the Act No.1 of 1986 and that the order of detention is liable to be set aside.

7. The second respondent, who is the Detaining Authority, has filed 'a detailed counter justifying the detention order. According to the second respondent, the activities earned out by the detenu arc in the nature of smuggling timber, which is a national property and also assaulting the forest officials amounted to a criminal activity. Several cases though booked against the detenu, yet he has not given up his illegal activities. Since the detenu is a habitual offender, in order to prevent him from assaulting the forest officials and indulging in smuggling activity of timber, the order of detention was passed. The second respondent has also narrated the venom with which the detenu and his men acted against the forest officials, not only preventing them from discharging their official duties but also caused injuries on the persons of the forest officials and therefore, several cases were also booked. The second respondent has also stated in the counter that it is in that background, in order to prevent him from indulging further smuggling activity and assaulting the forest officials, the respondents have taken recourse to pass an order of detention.

Writ Petition No.6382 of 1999 :

One Bandepalle Lingamurthy has filed the writ petition alleging his son Boya Peddodu alias Boya Peddanna aged about 23 years resident of Narayanapuram village has been detained and lodged in Central Prison, Secunderabad pursuant to the order of detention passed by the secondrespondent in RC.C1-325/M/99 dated 11-2-1999. According to this petitioner, the order of detention was received by the detenu on 21-2-1999. Under the detention order the detenu has been shown as a person of notorious activities of timber smuggling and assault of forest officials and as such he is detained under the provisions of Section 3(2) read with Section 3(1) of the Act 1 of 1986. The petitioner further complained that alleging that his son was a timber smuggler and with a view to prevent him from indulging in timber smuggling and assaults on forest officials and causing loss to Government exchequer by his goonda activities 'as mentioned in Section 2(g) of the Act 1 of 1986 which was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the detention order was passed.

8. The petitioner complained that the respondents have indicated four grounds in the order of detention. The first ground is based on an incident which took place on 13-3-1998 at about 7.00 a.m. and the forest officers were patrolling the Madigonigondi teak plantation in Ramannapeta section about 15 smugglers attacked and the main accused was the detenu. On the basis of the incident a report had been lodged with Bandi Atmakur P.S. on 14-3-1999 and a case in Cr. No.38/98 was registered. The second ground of detention is that on 21-7-1998 forest officials caught 15 carts of timber and there were 29 smugglers and among them the detenu was in the forefront. When the forest officials tried to prevent them they attacked with axes and abused them in vulgar language. On report given to the Police a case has been registered in Cr. No.71/98 under Sections 147, 148, 353 and 506 IPC. The third ground of detention is that on 30-9-1998 when the Forest Range Officer detected the cart loaded with timber in the vicinity of N.R. Kunta section and on enquiry from the villagers the officers came to know of the involvement of the detenu and acase has been booked under the provisions of Forest Offences as P.O. 31/98-99. The fourth ground mentioned in the detention order is that on 5-12-1998 around 5.00 p.m. when forest beat Officer of Ramannapet West Beat GBM Range and his associate heard the sounds of falling of trees and found 8 trees fallen and 9 smugglers including the detenu attacked them with axes and abused them in vulgar language. On a report given to the police a case in Cr. No.94/98 has been registered on the file of Bandi Atmakur P.S. under Sections 144, 148, 506, 363 and 149 1PC. The petitioner further alleged that merely because some crimes were registered which would fall under one or more of the Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code, the detenu cannot be treated as a goonda. The second respondent unjustified by held the detenu as a goonda and illegally detained him. The petitioner has complained that the four incidents mentioned are stale and irrelevant and as such the order of detention is liable to be set aside.

9. Counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents reiterating that the activities of the detenu are in the nature of smuggling of forest goods, valuable forest timber, forest teak and further the detenu with the support of his henchmen prevented the forest officials from discharging their duties and is habitual offender and unless the detenu is prevented from repeating the same offences, his activities are prejudiced to the maintenance of public order and that the detention order is justifiable.

Writ Petition No.6390 of 1999 :

One Kancherla Venkatarami Reddy has moved this Court questioning the detention order passed by the second respondent in proceedings Rc.C.1/409/M/99 dated 19-2-1999 ordering detention of his son Kancherla Kamma Jagadish (detenu) aged about 25 years resident of ChinnaDevelapuram village, Band! Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. The petitioner has complained that in the order of detention the detenu has been shown as person of notorious activities of timber smuggling and assault of forest officials and as such he has been detained under the provisions of Section 3(2) read with Section 3(1) of the Act I of 1986. The petitioner complained that the detention order passed by the second respondent is based on the information laid by the Divisional Forest Officer, Wild Life Division, Nandyal. Three grounds have been mentioned by the detaining authority in the order of detention. The first ground is that on 16-10-1996 at 4.00 p.m. when one V. Balachari, Forester G.B.M. Range and his staff were patrolling the detenu along with 17 persons forcibly drove 14 carts loaded with teak wood by threatening the forest officials and a report is given to the police which was registered in Cr. No.106/96 of Bandi Atmakur P.S. under Sections 353, 332 and 379 IPC. The second ground of detention is that on 17-6-1997 when the forest staff of N.R. Kunta section detected four loaded bullock-carts with teak timber and obstructed, the detenu attacked Forest Range Officer by name Somasekhar and also another Forest Range Officer namely Ahmed AH Khan and on the complaint given to the Police a case in Cr. No.36/97 of Bandi Atmakur P.S. was registered under Sections 353 and 506 IPC and a case in CC 33/98 is also pending before the Court. The third ground of detention is that on 14-2-1999 the detenu along with 20 smugglers attempted to murder the train party staff including Ahmed All Khan FRO and they also attacked protection party at GBM Rest House with lethal weapons like knives, sticks and guns and they severely injured Sri Ramudu and assaulted the other members of the protection party of Nandyal Forest Division and a case has been lodged in Cr. No.5/99 of Bandi Atmakur P.S. under Sections 332, 307 and 506 IPC.

10. The petitioner alleged that on the basis of this incident the second respondent came to the conclusion that the detenu is a notorious goonda within the meaning of Section 2(g) of Act I of 1986 and further opined that he is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of legitimate duties of the forest officials. The petitioner claimed that the detaining authority came to a wrong conclusion that the detenu is a goonda and thus holding passed the detention order invoking the provisions of Section 3 of the Act.1 of 1986, and therefore, prayed to set aside the detention order.

11. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents the respondents have justified the detention. The respondents have also justified the detention stating that the detenu is a habitual offender and his activities would fall within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act 1 of 1986. Despite many police cases have been booked against the detenu, he indulged in unlawful smuggling activities of timber and assaulting the forest personnel and therefore the respondents have justified that in order to prevent him from his illegal activity in smuggling and to prevent further loss to the Government exchequer and as the detenu has become threat to the normal work of the Government machinery and to prevent further damage being caused the detention order is passed.

Writ Petition No.8717 of 1999:

One Makkala Laxmi, wife of Makkala Venkati has filed this writ petition questioning the order of detention dated 4-2-1999 made under Section 3 of the Act 1 of 1986 ordering detention of her husband Makkala Venkati. She has complained that the order of detention was passed on 4-2-1999 which was approved by the State on 15-2-1999 and the Advisory Board having confirmed the order on 1-4-1999 by which detention was ordered to be continued inoperation for a period of 12 months from the date of detention i.e., from 8-2-1999. The petitioner has complained that the detaining authority in the grounds of detention order indicated four grounds which are as under : The first ground of detention is that on the intervening night of 28-2-1993/l-3-1993 on the instigation of Makkala Venkati, Edagotha Hanumanthu the timber smugglers came with axes to the quarter of Sri P. Potyha Reddy, Deputy Range Officer, Sathanapalle with intention to kill Potha Reddy and since the said Potha Reddy obstructed the smuggling of timber by this detenu and his men and sensing danger to the life, Potha Reddy fled away from the quarter through back door leaving his family and children in darkness to protect his life. The smugglers broke open the door with axes entered and searched the house for Potha Reddy and as they could not find him in the house, in a fit of anger, they damaged all his belongings including motor cycle in the presence of his family members and threatened them with dire consequences. The matter was also referred to the Superintendent of Police and the police registered the case. The second ground of detention is that on the intervening night of 3-3-1997/4-3-1997 on some information the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Khanapur along with staff when to Godavari Bank near Babapoor and laid watch to seize illicit transportation of timber. On the early hours about 30 carts with timber along with Makkala Venkati, Edagothu Hanumanthu and other community members about 60 persons including women and children came in a convoy, and the forest officials asked the accused to surrender themselves and hand over timber but the accused paid deaf ear to the pleas of forest officials land abused them in filthy language and pelted stones on them and deterred them from seizing the illegal timber and during the incident few forest officials received minor injuries. The SHO Khanapur P.S. registered a case in Cr. No. 15/97. The third instance is that onthe intervening night of 16-3-1997/17-3-1997 on some information the Deputy Range Officer, Sathanupalle and Forest Guard and 10 VSS members kept watch at canal bridge near Yellapur and at about 3.30 a.m. the forest officials noticed that 10 carts with teak timber accompanied by 20 members carrying on rods and axes moving towards Karimnagar side. The forest officials disclosed their identity and advised the accused to surrender themselves but the accused numbering 20 armed with cart pegs, axes, iron rods attacked and beat them and pelted stones on them and during the incident two persons sustained injuries and others escaped. The accused managed to escape with carts and teak wood. The SHO Khanapur P.S. booked a case in Cr. No.46/ 97 on 17-3-1997. The fourth charge is that on the intervening night of 30-12-1997/ 31-12-1997 on information the forest officials proceeded to Yellapur forest at a distance of one Kilometer and found two lorries bearing No.ATT 2530 and APS 2356 loaded with teak logs and ready for transportation under the leadership of detenu and on seeing them the accused persons got down from the lorry and ran away into the darkness and started pelting of stones and in the meanwhile other accused persons got down from the lorry armed with swords and charged the complainant and the forest staff who were unarmed and defenceless fled away from the scene to protect their lives. In the meantime the accused took away the lorries and on 31-12-1997 lorry No.ATT 2530 was seized by forest officials and registered forest offence case vide POR No. 1/124 dated 31-12-1997 and a police case was also registered in Crime No.1 of 1998 on the same day and investigation was in progress. Again on 7-1-1999, the detenu and one Edagotha Hamnanthu assaulted the forest staff and forcibly took away the bullock cart and illicit teak timber from the custody of Forest Department on which basis a case in Crime No.29, dated 4-1-1999 was booked by the forest officials and Police,Khanapur have also booked a case in Crime No.3/99 on 7-1-1999. Petitioner complained lo this Court that the grounds mentioned in the detention order arc stale and irrelevant and pleaded that the order of detention be set aside. Petitioner further complained that the activity of the detenu has been erroneously treated to be an activity falling under Section 2(g) of the Act and that terming the detenu as a goonda is unsustainable. Petitioner further complained that the alleged activity of smuggling of timber could never be termed as an activity prejudicial to the public order and prays this Court to quash the detention order.

12. The first respondent who is the detaining authority has filed a detailed counter justifying the detention order. The first respondent has stated that the activity of the detenu is such that it is prejudicial to the interest of the public and the detenu is a habitual offender and causing obstruction to the forest officials. It is further alleged that some forest officials have received serious injuries at the hands of the detenu and his henchmen and the offences committed by the detenu would fall under Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of IPC and as such, the detenu is a goonda within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act No.1 of 1986 and in order to prevent the activities of the detenu which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the order of detention is passed.

Writ Petition No.8718 of 1999 :

One Edagotha Lakshmi wife of Edagotha Hanwianthu has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of detention passed by the first respondent in proceedings PROC No.D3/78/99 dated 4-2-1999 under Section 3 of the Act 1 of 1986. The petitioner alleged that the first respondent has ordered detention of her husband as if the alleged activities of smuggling of timber would fall within the meaning ofSection 2(g) of the Act. The petitioner has complained that the four grounds urged in the detention order are stale and irrelevant inasmuch as on the basis of the stale and irrelevant grounds the order of detention could not have been passed by the first respondent.' The petitioner further complained that the alleged activity of her husband cannot be brought within the ambit of Section 2(g) of the Act 1 of 1986 and that the detenu could never be said to be a goonda as defined under the said, Act and therefore pleaded that the order of detention is unsustainable. The grounds of detention order are as follows : (1) On the intervening night of 28-2-1993/1-3-1993 on the instigation of Makkala Venkati, Edagotha Hanumanthu the timber smuggler came with axes to the quarter of Sri P. Potha Reddy, Deputy Range Officer, Sathanapalle with intention to kill him since forest officials interrupted them while smuggling and sensing danger to his life Potha Reddy fled away from the quarter from the back door but the smugglers broke open the door with axes, entered and searched the house for Potha Reddy and as they could not find him inside the house, in a fit of anger, they have damaged all his belongings including motor cycle in the presence of his family members and threatened them with dire consequences and the matter was also referred to the Superintendent of Police and police booked a case. The second ground of detention order is that on the intervening night of 3-3-1997/4-3-1997 on some information the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Khanapur along with staff went to Godavari bank near Babapoor and laid a watch to seize illicit transportation of timber and on the early hours about 30 carts with timber along with Makkala Venkati, Edagothu Hanumanthu and other community members 60 in number came in a convoy. The forest officials asked them to surrender them and hand over timber but the accused paid deaf ear and abused them in filthy language and pelted stones on them anddeterred them from seizing the timber and during the incident some forest officials have received minor injuries and the SHO Khanapur P.S. registered a case in Cr. No. 15/97. The third charge is that on the intervening night of 16-3-1997/17-3-1997 on some information the Deputy Range Officer, Sathanapalle and forest guard and other staff kept a watch at canal bridge near Yellapur and at about 3.30 a.m. they noticed 10 carts with teak timber accompanied by 20 members carrying iron rods and axes moving towards Karimnagar side. When the forest officials asked them to surrender the accused who were armed with cart pegs? axes, iron rods attacked them and pelted stones at the forest officials and during the incident two forest officials sustained injuries and a case in Cr. No.46/97 was registered by S.H.O. Khanapur Police. The fourth charge mentioned in the detention order against the detenu is that on the intervening night of 30-12-1997/31-12-1997 on information the above said forest officials found two lorries AIT 2530 and APS 2356 at Yellapur forest loaded with teak logs and on seeing them the accused persons got down from the lorry APS 2356 and ran away and in the meanwhile the other accused persons got down from the lorry ATT 2530 with swords and chased the forest officials who fled away to protect their lives. But on 31-12-1997 at Tallapet the lorry ATT 2530 was seized by forest officials and registered a case in POR No.1/124 dated 31-12-1997 and a police case in Cr. No.1/98 was also registered on the same day and investigation is under progress. The last ground in the detention order is that after the vehicle was seized the detenu and others got contact with Nizamabad smugglers and transported timber by head load and on cycles from Yellapur to Damarajpalle and loaded into lorry and when forest staff of Karimnagar obstructed, the smugglers attacked forest officials with swords and killed one forest guard Sri Ch. Narahari on the spot and fled away with lorry and timber and the samelorry was seized at Nizamabad. The petitioner states that since the order of detention is not based on any material, it is liable to be set aside.

13. Counter has been filed on behalf of. the first respondent-the detaining authority, inter alia, justifying the order of detention. The first respondent has stated in the counter that the activity of the detenu is such that it is prejudicial to the interest of the public and the detenu is a habitual offender and causing obstructions to the forest officials. It is further alleged that some forest officials have received serious injuries and the offences committed by the detenu would fall under Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code and as such he is a 'goonda' within the ambit of Section 2(g) of Act No.1 of 1986 and in order to prevent the activities of the detenu which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the order of detention is passed.

14. On behalf of the petitioners in writ petition Nos. 6375, 6382 and 6390 of 1999 we have heard Sri T. Ball Reddy, learned senior Counsel along with Mr. P. Vengala Reddy, Counsel. We have also heard Sri C, Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel along with Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.87I7 and 8718 of 1999.

15. Both the learned senior Counsel have submitted that the alleged activity against these detenus is smuggling of teak from the forest. If that is so, smuggler of teak cannot be treated as a goonda within the meaning of Section 2(g) of Act No.1 of 1986. According to the learned senior Counsel, the detaining authority has taken into consideration several irrelevant grounds and those irrelevant grounds cannot form part of detention order. Learned senior Counsel have also submitted that the detaining authority has failed to show thatthese detenus were habitual offenders and their activity is opposed to public order. Both the learned senior Counsel submitted that the orders of detention are based on stale and irrelevant grounds and therefore, they are liable to be set aside on that ground alone.

16. Sri T. Ball Reddy, learned senior Counsel has drawn our attention to the grounds of detention orders in Writ Petition Nos.6375, 6382 and 6390 of 1999 and submitted that insofar as the first writ petition i.e., WP No.6375 of 1999 is concerned, though four grounds are mentioned in the detention order, the first three grounds are stale as the instances relate to the forest offences committed in the year 1996 and therefore, pleaded that on a stale instance, no order of detention could be passed. The learned Counsel referring to the object of Act No.1 of 1986 submitted that the object of detention is with a view to prevent the action of smuggling and assaulting public servants. These activities, according to the learned senior Counsel, cannot be said to be an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore, pleaded that exercising of power by the detaining authority under Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act No.1 of 1986 and ordering detention of the detenus is not sustainable.

17. Likewise, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.8717 and 8718 of 1999 has also drawn our attention to the grounds of detention in the writ petitions. According to the learned Counsel, the detaining authority has taken into consideration several irrelevant grounds which have no nexus with the other grounds and therefore, pleaded that on the basis of the irrelevant grounds, the detention order cannot be ordered. According to the learned senior Counsel, though five grounds are shown by the detaining authority, the first ground relating to the instance whichhas taken place on the intervening night of 28-2-1993/1-3-1993 and the detenus were acquitted by the competent criminal Court. According to the learned senior Counsel, as a result of the acquittal of the detenus by the competent Court, that ground is not available to the detaining authority to order the detention and as such the order of detentions are liable to be set aside. That apart, the learned senior Counsel stated that since the fifth ground is irrelevant, no order of detention could have been passed on such an irrelevant ground.

18. It is also urged on behalf of the petitioners that when the detenus are enlarged on bail, the detaining authority failed to take notice of this aspect and as such, non-consideration of the fact of obtaining bails by the detenus would vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and therefore, it is submitted that the orders of detention are liable to be quashed on this ground also.

19. In support of their varied contentions, both the learned senior Counsel have referred to the following decisions reported in Shiv Prasad v. State of M.P., : 1981CriLJ594 , Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, : 1984CriLJ909 , K. Ramanamma v. Government of A.P., : 1998(3)ALD86 , K. Manjula v. Chief Secretary to the Government of A.P., : 1998(2)ALD174 , Magan Gope v. State of West Bengal, : 1975CriLJ791 , Harpreet Kaur v. State of Maharashira, : 1992CriLJ769 , Naval Shankar Ishwarlal Dave v. State of Gujarat, 1993 (3) SCC 754 and in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration, : 1982CriLJ1191 .

20. The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the respondents-detaining authorities, on the contrary, pleaded that though there are four to five grounds indicated in all the detention orders, some instances which are already decided and ended in acquittal have also been traced in the detention orders only toshow that the detenus have been indulging in smuggling activities and arc habitual offenders. The learned Additional Advocate-General stated that the offences committed by the detenus are not only forest offences but the magnitude of their activities has a telling effect on the functioning of the forest officials as some of them have received serious injuries and are unable to discharge their official duties. The learned Additional Advocate-General further submitted that the modus operandi of the detenus is to come in groups, attack the forest officials, cut the valuable forest timber and smuggle it outside the State to make fortunes out of the said activity. It is also submitted that not only the valuable lives of the forest officials are at stake as a result of the smuggling activities indulged in by these detenus along with their supporters but the valuable forest wealth is also lost, and thus the activities indulged in by these detenus, which are against the interests of the society at large, are to be termed as affecting public order. The learned Additional Advocate-General has tried to contend that as the detenus have assaulted the forest officials, the offences committed by these detenus would fall within the ambit of Sections 352, 324, 332, 237, 506 and 307 IPC. The learned Additional Advocate-General submitted that under Section 2(g) of Act No.1 of 1986, 'goonda' has been defined as a person who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code. Chapter XVI of IPC relates to the offences committed affecting the human body, Chapter XVII relates to offences committed against property and Chapter XII of IPC relates to offences of intimidation, insult and annoyance. The learned Additional Advocate-General stated that the grounds in each case would reflect that these detenus are habitual offenders and despite criminal cases booked against them on earlieroccasions which are pending which relate to various instances, the detenus are continuing their illegal activity and therefore the detaining authorities have to exercise powers under Section 3 of the Act 1 of 1986 with a view to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The learned Additional Advocate-General clarified to us that insofar as the instances relating to the year 1996 are concenied, the detenus were granted bail and the matters are pending. As far as the instances relating to the years 1998 and 1999 are concerned, no bails are granted to them and that they are detained pursuant to the orders of detention passed by the detaining authority. In the writ petitions 6375/1999, 6382/99 and 6390/99 the detenus were arrested on 21-2-1999 pursuant to an order of detention passed on 19-2-1999, 11-2-1999 and 19-2-1999 respectively. Insofar as the detenus in Writ Petition Nos.8717/99 and 8718/99 are concerned, pursuant to the order of detention they were arrested and are lodged in Chenchalguda jail on 13-2-1999 and no bail is granted to them. The learned Additional Advocate-General stated that the detaining authority was satisfied that if the detenus are left free, their activity would prejudice the public order and therefore ordered detention.

21. The learned Additional Advocate-General relied upon decisions of Harpreet Kaur (supra), and Naval Shankar Ishwarlal Dave (supra) cases. He also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in V. Nagarathnamma v. Government of A P., 1996 (3) ALD 770 (DB).

22. On an elaborate hearing of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners on one side and the learned Additional Advocate-Generalappearing on behalf of the respondents on the other side and in the light of the decisions cited by the Counsel for both sides,the foremost question that arises for our determination is, viz.,Whether the activity alleged against the detenus would fall within the ambit of Section 2(g) of the Act No.1 of 1986 and that the order of detention could be sustainable?

23. The detention orders are passed by the competent authorities exercising the powers available to them under Section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, dacoits, drug-offenders, goondas, immoral traffic offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act No.1 of 1986). The emphasis under this Act is that if the detaining authority is satisfied with regard to any activity indulged in by boot-legger, dacoit, drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or land-grabber which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to public order, the detaining authority is entitled to pass an order of detention under Section 3(1) or 3(2) of the Act, as the case may be. However, the detaining authority must satisfy himself that the person so detained is one of the type of persons mentioned under Section 3(1) of the Act.

24. Section 2 of the said Act postulates 'Definitions' and it reads thus :

(2) Definitions : In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires -

(a) 'acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order' means 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 : Explanation : 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 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 of widespread danger to life or public health.

Under Clauses (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Section 2 of the Act, the terms 'boot-legger', 'dacoit', 'detention order' and 'detenue' are defined respectively. Similarly, under Clauses 2(f) and 2(g) of the Act, the terms 'drug offender' and 'goonda' respectively are defined. Section 2(g) of the Act under which the term 'goonda' is defined, reads thus :

2(g): 'goonda' means a person, who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the Commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code;

25. A reading of the definition assigned to the term 'goonda' under Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act would give a meaning that a person either individually or as a member of any gang habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the Commission of an offence punishable under Chapters XVI or XVII or XXII of the Indian Penal Code, such person is termed as a 'goonda'. Under Chapter XVI, the offences affecting the human body are enumerated which include culpable homicide, murder, dowry death, hurt, grievous hurt, assault, kidnapping, abduction, rape etc. Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offences against property which include theft, extortion, robbery, dacoity, criminal breach of trust, cheating, mischief, trespass etc. Chapter XXII of the IPC dealswith criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance.

26. In the grounds of detention in all these writ petitions, the detaining authorities have traced few instances ranging from the year 1996 to 1999. These instances indicated in the grounds of detention refer to the activities of the detenus along with their supporters in smuggling the teak wood from the forest areas of Kurnool and Adilabad districts and in that process attacking the forest officials with deadly weapons thereby preventing the officials from discharging their duties. Despite registration of cases against these detenus for indulging in smuggling activities of forest material, on earlier occasions, they persistently continued with the smuggling activities unhindered. The detaining authorities, were therefore of the view that normal penal laws of the land are not sufficient to deter the detenus from committing these crimes and to put the fear of law into their minds, the detaining authorities ordered the detention of the detenus under Section 3(2) of the Act.

27. Both the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in these writ petitions contended that the activities indulged in by these detenus viz., smuggling forest teak-wood and causing hurt to the forest officials would not in any way fall within the ambit of Section 2(g) of the Act so as to term the detenus as 'goondas'. It is further contended that the offences, if any, committed by these detenus also would not fall under Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code and the detaining authorities have erred in terming these detenus as 'goondas' and ordered their detention under Section 3(2) of the Act, which detention orders, according to the learned senior Counsel, are unsustainable. In support of their contentions, learned senior Counsel have drawn our attention to the decisions cited Shiv Prasad v. State of M.P., Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, K. Ramanamma v. Government of A.P., K. Manjula v. Chief Secretary to the Government of A.P., Magan Gope v. State of West Bengal, Harpreet Kaur v. State of Maharashtra, Naval Shankar Ishwarlal Dave' v. State of Gujarat and In Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration (supra).

28. The principle deducible from these decisions is that the Courts have to determine whether the activities-of a person are such that they have the potentiality to disturb even the tempo of the community which make it prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Harvinder Singh Bedi v. State of Maharashtra, : 1992CriLJ769 , the Supreme Court at para 14 held thus:

'.... it is the degree and extent of the reach of the objectionable activity upon the society which is vital for considering the question whether a man has committed only a breach of 'law and order' or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance to 'public order'. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order'. Whenever an order of detention is questioned, the Courts apply these tests to find out whether the objectionable activities upon which the order of detention is grounded fall under the classification of being prejudicial to 'public order' or belong to the category of being prejudicial only to 'law and order'. An order of detention under the Act would be valid if the activities of a detenu affect 'public order' but would not be so where the same affect only the maintenance of 'law and order'. Facts of each case have, therefore, to be carefully scrutinised to test the validity of an order of detention.'

29. Therefore, the relevant test that is to be applied is whether the objectionable activities indulged in by the detenus fall under the classification of being prejudicial to 'public order' or only prejudicial to 'law and order'.

30. Coming to the facts of the case, all these detenus are found indulging in smuggling activities of forest material and in that process they went even to the extent of inflicting injuries on the forest officials and prevented them from discharging their duties. In the detention orders, it is also indicated that despite cases being registered against these detenus for the said activities on earlier occasions, they persistently continued to indulge in the smuggling activities and as such, the impugned detention orders are passed against them.

31. As indicated in the foregoing paragraphs, Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act defines 'goonda' as a person who habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code. In the grounds of detention and in the counter-affidavits filed in these writ petitions, the respondents have asserted that these detenus have caused bodily injuries to the forest officials and have also prevented them from discharging their duties of protecting the forest wealth which is the wealth of the community as a whole. Under Explanation to Section 2(a) of the Act, it is clarified that for the purpose of delaying a person acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, 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 agrave of widespread danger to life or public health. It may be true that the activities of the detenus may not be in the nature of creating a feeling of insecurity among the general public but nonetheless if it is found that any section of the general public feels danger or insecurity as a result of the activity of any person, even then also such an activity would amount to acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

32. Both the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners contended that even if it is to be accepted that the detenus and their supporters have caused injuries to the forest officials, the forest officials could neither be categorised as 'general public' nor 'any section thereof and that they are only the employees of the State and if they were prevented by the detenus, the detenus could be booked under Section 353 of 1PC and they cannot be detained under Section 3(2) of the Act.

33. We are not inclined to accept this submission advanced by the learned senior Counsel. Merely because the forest officials are a small community and that community would not form part of the general public, the detenus cannot be booked under Section 353 of IPC inasmuch as the explanation to Section 2(a) of the Act provides that if by the activities of the detenus any Section of the general public is affected, such an activity could still be held to be an activity falling under Section 2(a) of the Act. The forest officials are also part of the general public. The detenus and their supporters were indulging in the activities of committing theft of forest material and smuggling it and in that process, they have assaulted the forest officials and prevented them from discharging their duties. As provided under Section 2(g) of the Act, a person is termed as 'goonda' under the Act if be habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offencespunishable under Chapters XVI or XVII or XXII of IPC. Two ingredients are contemplated to categorise a person as a 'goonda' under this Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act, viz., a person must be a habitual offender and if he habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapters XVI or XVII or XXII of IPC. Habitual offender means a person who repeatedly and persistently continues a particular activity. The question, therefore, is whether the detenus are habitual offenders and have committed the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or XVII or XXII of IPC In the grounds indicated in the orders of detention, the detaining authority has* mentioned four to five instances ranging from the years 1996 to 1999 in which these detenus have been found indulging in these smuggling activities and assaulting the forest officials causing them bodily injuries. It looks to us that there is an element of continuity in the activities of these detenus. Besides, these detenus have also assaulted the public servants (forest officials) to deter them from discharging their duties, as is evident from the grounds of detention and the counters filed in these writ petitions, which offence falls under Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code.

34. Courts have held that the magnitude of the activities shall be such that the even tempo of the society is affected. A solitary or a remote incident may not be such that to say that the even tempo of the community is affected. The activities of the detenus viz., felling of forest trees, smuggling them and in that process assaulting the forest officials and preventing them from discharging their lawful duties are nothing but disturbing the even tempo of public order. Cutting the forest trees illegally on a large scale would ultimately lead to dwindling of the forest area and result in deforestation which is now the concern of the society which of late has realised the importance of maintainingecological balance. The process of deforestation would invariably lead to ecological imbalance which affects the community as a whole in the long run. As indicated, when the community's wealth is affected by the activities of these detenus and their supporters, such an act could definitely be held to be affecting public order. Therefore, we are convinced to hold that the detenus, despite cases being registered against them on earlier occasions, have persistently and repeatedly continued in the activity of timber smuggling from the forest areas and also assaulted the forest officials and are habitual offenders. Therefore, they are rightly been termed as 'goondas' within the meaning of Clause (g) of Section 2 of Act No.1 of 1986 by the detaining authorities.

35. Sri C Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP Nos.8717 and 8718 of 1999, submitted that the grounds mentioned in the detention orders impugned are vague, stale and irrelevant and there is no nexus between one ground and another and as such, the detention orders are liable to be quashed.

36. It is no doubt true that in these two writ petitions, the impugned detention orders and grounds thereof referred to an incident which has taken place on the intervening night of 28-2-1993/1-3-1993 and the criminal case registered based on that incident has resulted in the acquittal of the detenus. However, it cannot be said that this incident is also one of the grounds of detention. In the counter-affidavits, the detaining authority has explained that this incident is only mentioned to indicate the fact that the detenus are habitual offenders who are continuously indulging in forest timber smuggling activities. A further reading of the detention order impugned in WP Nos. 8717 and 8718 of 1999 would invariably show that the detenus have been successfully indulging in timber smuggling activities from the year1997 onwards and the latest activity indulged in by them took place on 7-1-1999. The detention order further discloses that the value of the timber involved in the smuggling activity is more than few lakhs of rupees. It cannot, therefore, be said that the detaining authority has passed these detention orders on stale or irrelevant grounds. We, therefore, disagree with the submissions made by the learned senior Counsel in this regard.

37. Having regard to our discussion and in the light of the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court indicated above, the activities alleged against the detenus would invariably fall within the ambit of Section 2(g) of Act No.1 of 1986 and the impugned orders of detention do not suffer from any infirmity or procedural irregularity.

38. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. However, no costs.