PESALA NOOKARAJU versus THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 520 · Decided: 16-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 520 : 2023 INSC 734
CASE DETAILS
PESALA NOOKARAJU
v.
THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2304 of 2023)
AUGUST 16, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI, 
J.B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the Division Bench of the High 
Court rightly declined to interfere with the order of preventive detention 
passed against the appellant detenu by the District Collector in exercise 
of his powers u/s. 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous 
Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Off enders, Goondas, Immoral 
Traffi  c Off enders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.
Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-
leggers, Dacoits, Drug Off enders, Goondas, Immoral Traffi  c Off enders 
and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 – s. 3(2) – Preventive detention – Appellant 
indulging in distributing, storing, transporting and selling ID Liquor 
which causes huge damage to the public health as well as public peace 
and tranquility – Order of preventive detention passed by the District 
Collector in exercise of powers u/s. 3(2) – High Court upheld the 
detention order – Correctness:
Held: It cannot be said that the detention order passed for 12 months at 
a stretch could be termed as without jurisdiction and contrary to the mandate 
of sub-section (2) of s. 3 – Period as mentioned in s. 3(2) refers to the period 
of delegation of powers and it has no relevance at all to the period for which 
a person may be detained – Period of three months stipulated in Art. 22(4)
(a) is relatable to the initial period of detention up to the stage of receipt of 
report of the Advisory Board and does not have any bearing on the period 
of detention, which is continued subsequent to the confi rmatory order being 
520
521
passed by the State Government on receipt of the report of the Advisory 
Board – Furthermore, detaining authority specifi cally stated in the grounds 
of detention that selling liquor by the detenu and the consumption by the 
people of that locality was harmful to their health – Such statement is an 
expression of his subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu is 
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order – Thus, no error of law in the 
impugned judgment of the High Court. [Paras 23, 38, 71 and 72]
Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-
leggers, Dacoits, Drug Off enders, Goondas, Immoral Traffi  c Off enders 
and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 – s. 3(2) – Interpretation: 
Held: s. 3(2) has nothing to do with the period of detention – s. 3(2) 
is with respect to the delegation of powers by the State Government upon 
the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police, as the case may be, 
for exercise of powers u/s. 3(2) – Period as mentioned in s. 3(2) refers to 
the period of delegation of powers by the State Government and it has no 
relevance at all to the period for which a person may be detained – Thus, s. 
3(2) provides that if the State Government is satisfi ed having regard to the 
circumstances prevailing in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction 
of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, it is necessary to 
empower the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, as the case 
may be, to exercise the powers of the State Government to order detention 
of a person as provided by sub-section (1), then the State Government may 
by an order in writing direct that during such period as may be specifi ed in 
the order, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police may also, 
if satisfi ed as provided in sub-section (1) exercises the powers of the State 
Government as conferred by sub-section (1) – Proviso to sub-section (2) 
thus, has nothing to do with the period of detention of a detenu – Maximum 
period of detention is prescribed u/s. 13 which lays down that the person 
may be detained in pursuance of any detention order made under the Act 
which has been confi rmed u/s. 12. [Paras 23, 26, and 39]
Constitution of India – Art. 22(4)(a) – Relevance of Art. 22(4)(a):
Held: Reading of Art. 22(4)(a) would clearly indicate that no law 
providing for preventive detention shall authorize the detention of a person 
for a period beyond three months – Thus, an order of detention cannot be for 
a period longer than three months unless, the Advisory Board has reported 
before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is, in its 
PESALA NOOKARAJU v. THE GOVERNMENT OF 
ANDHRA PRADESH

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.