Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.

1. The present writ petition is filed to set aside the detention order dated 28.02.2023 passed against the detenu by name Chakali Harilingam and the consequential G.O.Rt. No. 696, dated 14.04.2023 that was issued confirming the said order and to set the detenu at liberty.

2. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu by name Chakali Harilingam. The said detention order was passed against the detenu on the ground that the detenu has been involved in six crimes for the offences punishable under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, which are as follows:

1) Cr. No. 198/2019, U/s. 7(a) r/w 8E of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act of Rudravaram P.S.

2) Cr. No. 158/2022, U/s. 7(a) r/w 8E of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 of SEB Station, Allagadda.

3) Cr. No. 245/2022, U/s.7(a) r/w 8E of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, Rudravaram P.S.

4) Cr. No. 247/2022, U/s. 7(a) r/w 8E of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, Rudravaram P.S.

5) Cr. No. 169/2022, U/s. 7(a) r/w 8E of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, Gadivemula P.S.

6) Cr. No. 321/2022, U/s. 7(a) r/w 8E of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, Rudravaram P.S.

The alleged acts of the detenu comes under the definition of Bootlegger under Section 2(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986, (hereinafter called as "the Act"). Therefore, the present writ petition is filed stating that the said order of preventive detention is in clear violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have passed the orders in mechanical, routine, dull and casualness on the part of the authorities which affects the right to life of the detenu. In fact, the said distilled liquor does not contain any fusel oil and there is no basis for arriving at such conclusion and such conclusion is premature and there is no material before the respondents for invoking the provisions of the said Act against the detenu and without being any strong material to substantiate their stand and it is a clear violation of the said Act.

4. Learned Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that the detenu was involved as many as six crimes as stated above and the said distilled liquor was sent to the Government Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Kurnool for analysis and the analyst has given the report stating that the sample is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and therefore, the said liquor affects the public health and therefore, the detenu comes under the provisions of the Act and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. The legal validity of the impugned order is also questioned on the ground that there is inordinate delay in considering the representation of the petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation was submitted on 13.03.2023 and it was acknowledged on 15.03.2023 on the concerned authority and no order was passed against the said representation. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Rajammal v. State of T.N. and another (1999) 1 Supreme Court Cases 417, [LQ/SC/1998/1187] wherein it is held that delay in disposing of representation which is not justified renders the order of preventive detention as not valid.

In the above reported judgment, the delay is only six (06) days in disposing of the representation and it is sought to be explained on the ground that concerned Minister was absent in the headquarters. The Apex Court did not accept the said explanation and held that absence of the Minister concerned of the headquarters, is not sufficient to justify the delay.

6. In Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal 1970 AIR 675, the Supreme Court held that the appropriate authority/ Government is bound to consider the representation of the detenu as early as possible; the reason, for immediate consideration of the representation, is that the personal liberty of a person is at stake; any delay would not only be an irresponsible act on the part of the appropriate authority, but also unconstitutional, as the Constitution enshrines the fundamental right of a detenu to have his representation considered; it is imperative that, when the liberty of a person is in peril, immediate action should be taken by the relevant authorities; the appropriate authority should, immediately, consider the representation of the detenu before sending the matter to the Advisory Board; and such action will then have the real flavour of independent judgment.

7. When a person is detained in pursuance of the detention order, the authority shall communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order, to the Government. In the instant case, the wife of the detenu has made a representation to the District Collector dated 13.03.2023 which was received and acknowledged by the respondents on 15.03.2023. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that the said representation was not disposed of and it was not even referred in the counter-affidavit about the said representation and said representation was not disposed of by the respondents herein. On perusing the counter-affidavit and the entire record no where it was stated about the disposal of the representation dated 13.03.2023.

8. No explanation is forthcoming in the counter-affidavit filed before this Court for the delay in considering the representation. The delay in disposing of the representation of the detenu would vitiate only the continued detention of the detenu and not the detention order. By reason of the delay only, further detention of the detenu is rendered illegal and unconstitutional. Hence the detenu is liable to be set at free basing on the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

9. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 36838 of 2022, wherein this Court after considering the catena of decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court, held that after considering the material on record and the reasons assigned in the impugned order of preventive detention, that the acts of the detenu in indulging in transportation and dealing with the illicit liquor by itself is not sufficient to detain the detenu under the provisions of the Act and the respondents have miserably failed to substantiate their version that the said acts are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or that it is causing grave and widespread danger to the life and health of the public.

10. As can be seen from the order dated 20.06.2023 passed in W.P. No. 36838 of 2022, it appears that the facts in the present writ petition are similar to the facts in the aforesaid writ petition. Hence, we are of the considered view that mere involvement of the detenu in six crimes, is not sufficient to hold that the said act does not prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.

11. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order of preventive detention, dated 28.02.2023, passed against the husband of the petitioner by name Chakali Harilingam and the consequential G.O.Rt. No. 696, dated 14.04.2023 that was issued confirming the said order. The detenu by name Chakali Harilingam shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. There shall be no order as to costs.

12. Office is directed to enclose a copy of order in W.P. No. 36838 of 2022, dated 20.06.2023, to this order.

13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.