226 issue a direction, order and writ in the nature of mandamus and or certiorari quashing an illegal order of detention and may by direction, order and writ in the nature of prohibition enjoin the person threatening the illegal detention from execut ing the threat.
As the detention order was already passed and served and the detenu was already taken into custody during the pendency of the writ petition, these subsequent events having been brought to the numberice of the companyrt by a Misc.
Admittedly numberspecific order was passed on this miscellaneous petition.
However, on 10.6.1988 the appellant was served the detention order in No.
He also assailed the order on grounds of number application of mind by the respondent NO.
The appellant filed on 25.6.1988 in his writ petition a miscellaneous petition being W.P.M.P.S.R. No.
He refuted and denied each of the 13 grounds and prayed that the writ petition be amended by substituting the prayer so as to issue a writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order of the Collector and District Magistrate respondent No.
2 herein in S.R. No.
7 of 1988 dated 3.6.1988 was served on him on 10.6.1988 and, therefore, he submitted the additional affi davit with reference to the impugned order of detention.
51830, as an additional affidavit, stating, inter alia, that the writ petition was filed by him seeking a direction to the re spondents to refrain from making an order detaining him under the provisions of the Act and the same was admitted and interim direction issued.
Scenting a move to detain the appellant under the provisions 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, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.
But thereafter the detention order in S.No.
On 13.11.1987, the police having summoned him to the Police Station for taking his photograph as was done in case of criminals, he moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court by Writ Petition No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.7.1988 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No.
8610 of 1988 on 6.6.1988 in the Andhra Pradesh High Court averting, inter alia, that the successive actions initiated against him were a part of political vendetta.
2 and absence of nexus between the grounds and maintenance of public order and of number disclosure of any rational basis for formation of such an opinion.
The deten tion order stated that with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to make an order directing that he shall be de tained.
The grounds of detention as served upon the appel lant companytained altogether 13 grounds ranging a period from 23.11.1974 to 7.5.1988.
A learned Single Judge on 8.6.1988 was pleased to direct interim the respondents number to take the appellant into preventive custody for a period of 15 days on basis the cases already registered.
application in the form of an Additional Affidavit the same ought to have been dealt with by the High Court.
The State having raised a preliminary objec tion to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the habeas companypus jurisdiction under Art.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
702 of 1989.
Thereafter the excise authorities are stated to have registered some cases against the appellant who applied for and was granted bail on 10.5.1988 rejecting the Excise authorities prayer for custody.
He assailed therein the grounds of detention as vague, stale, number existent and, in any case, irrelevant bearing numberreasons for the decision that his detention was necessary to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on reference by the learned Single judge heard the writ peti tion analogously with another writ petition and observing, inter alia, that as an order of detention was made even before the writ petition was filed, held that the prayer in the writ petition had become infructuous and that there were numberextraordinary or special reasons to depart from the numbermal rule, namely, that in such a case the appellant should first surrender and move for a writ of habeas companypus, and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
L.J. 767, the challenge was directed towards orders of detention passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, but the intended detenus under those orders were number in detention.
The appellant states that he enjoys popularity in his area and that he previously held several important positions in the Cuddapah District of Andhra Pradesh, such as organis ing Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee for several years, a Municipal Councillor from 1982 to 1986 and a Vice Chairman of Cuddapah Municipal Council.
7/1988 dated 3.6.1988 as well as the grounds of deten tion and he was taken into custody and detained in Secun derabad jail, but was released after four days.
having failed to woo him into their fold he was pressurised through the Excise and Police authorities foisting false cases upon him.
C. Bhandare and Ms. C.K. Sucharita for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. SAIKIA, J. Special leave granted.
Ganesh, S. Muralidhar, T.V.S.N. Chari and Raghav for the Respondents.
According to him in December 1985 he was elected as a Chairman of the Cuddapah Municipal Council for its residuary term and in March 1987 he was elected to the Municipal Council as an independent candidate defeating the Telugu Desam and Con gress I candidates by a large margin.
8610 of 1988.
86 10 of 1988.
79038 of 1987 and the High Court was pleased to issue directions as prayed for, by its order dated 17.12.1987.
This appeal is from the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 4.7.1988 passed in Writ Petition No.
7 of 1988 dated 3.6.1988 made under Act 1 of 1986 as illegal and void and to pass such other orders as are necessary in the inter ests of justice.
