A detention order was passed against a person under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act for the manufacture and sale of arrack. The detainee contended that the authority should have provided him with documents disclosing reasons for detention. The state held that this is unnecessary as the act itself affects public order. The Supreme Court held that sale of arrack can be dealt with under the Excise Act. Only if the arrack is dangerous to public health, the activity can be termed as prejudicial to affecting public order. Such orders can be passed on the basis of material ? the chemical examiner?s report, for instance ? which should be supplied to the detainee (The District Collector Anandapur & Anr vs V. Laxmanna).

A landlord filed an eviction suit stating that his son needed the premises for running a cloth business. The tenant contended that the landlord was running such business from other premises. He further held that at the time of initiation of such proceedings the son was a minor. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the premises in question were more suited to the needs of of the landlord who has the right to choose the same. The court further ruled that the son?s requirement is bona fide ? irrespective of his age ? as the provision for eviction for business purpose includes ?proposed business? (Basanthilal vs Om Prakash).

A bank made an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for impounding passport of one who?d failed to repay loans. The bank apprehended that the defaulter might flee the country. The question arose as to whether the tribunal has the powers to take such a step. The Kerala High Court held that when power is given to arrest a debtor and detain him, it carries with it the incidental power to prevent him from going abroad (Annai Jayabharati vs Debts Recovery Tribunal).

SOLON