Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ankati Venkata Narayana vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.3003 of 2021
(Through Video-Conferencing)
Ankati Venkata Narayana, S/o.Ankati Gopala Rao
@ Gopala Krishna Murthy, aged about 40 years,
R/o.1148, Amarlapudi village, Pedakakani Mandal,
Guntur District ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal
Secretary, Department of Home at Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, and others ... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Ms. M. Vidyavathi
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, G.P.
attached to the Office of the
learned AAG - II
Date of hearing : 14.07.2021
Date of order : .08.2021
ORDER
(Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
This writ petition is filed by the son of Mr. Ankati Gopala Rao @ Gopala
Krishna Murthy, who is undergoing imprisonment in Central Prison,
Rajamahendravaram, from 03.04.1996 due to his conviction by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Guntur, under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C., in Sessions Case
No.506 of 1992 and affirmed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.422 of 1996.
2. Questioning the refusal in not giving special remission to his father in
accordance with G.O.Ms.No.6, Home (Paroles) Department dated 09.01.2019 at
par with similarly situated convicted persons, the petitioner had approached this
Court by filing a writ petition which was registered as W.P.No.12192 of 2019. The
2 HCJ & NJS,J
W.P.No.3003 of 2021
said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 28.09.2019 directing as
follows:
"12. Having regard to the above, the present Writ Petition is
disposed of directing the authorities to produce the detenu before
the Medical Board, who shall give a fresh certificate as to the
ailment with which the convicted prisoner is suffering and also as to
whether he would be in a position to commit organized crime after
his release, since the earlier certificate given is silent on that aspect.
No order as to costs."
3. In order to understand the import of the aforesaid direction, necessarily,
relevant facts will have to be taken note of and that brings us to G.O.Ms.No.6,
Home (Paroles) Department, dated 09.01.2019.
4. The Government have decided to review and recommend the cases of life
convicted prisoners who have been convicted for an offence or offences against
laws relating to matters which the executive power of the State extends with
certain conditions for grant of Special Remission on the occasion of Republic Day
which falls on 26th January, 2019, under Article 161 of the Constitution of India,
though they are covered by Section 433-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
and, accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.6 was issued laying down guidelines, amongst
others, giving one time exemption to consider special remission in the categories
of prisoners who have been convicted by Civil Courts of criminal jurisdiction and
the guidelines will be applicable to the prisoners who had been convicted and
undergoing life sentence, keeping in view of their good behaviour and subject to
conditions as specified at para 8. Para 8 provided that remission of sentence as
indicated in para 7 shall apply to prisoners who had been convicted by Courts
within the State of Andhra Pradesh and are undergoing sentence in Andhra
Pradesh and in other States, but shall not apply to two categories of cases under
3 HCJ & NJS,J
W.P.No.3003 of 2021
the heading Category I and Category II. Clause (xiv) of Category II stipulated
that para 7 will not apply to prisoners convicted of murder of public servants while
performing duty.
5. Clause-7 of G.O.Ms.No.6, Home (Paroles) Department, dated 09.01.2019,
reads as follows:
"7. Accordingly, relaxing the orders issued in the reference 1st read
above, the Government hereby issues the following guidelines giving
one time exemption to consider special remission in the cases of
following categories of prisoners who have been convicted by Civil
Courts of criminal jurisdiction. These guidelines will be applicable to
the following life convicts undergoing life sentence, keeping in view
of their good behavior, subject to conditions as specified at para-8
below:-
a) Cases of convicted women prisoners sentenced to imprisonment
for life, including those governed by Section 433-A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) who have
undergone an actual sentence of 5 years including remand period
and total sentence of 7 years including remission as on 26.01.2019
shall be considered for release.
b) Cases of convicted male prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for
life including those governed by Section 433-A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) and who have
undergone an actual sentence of 7 years including remand period
and total sentence of 10 years including remission as on 26-01-2019
shall be considered for release.
4 HCJ & NJS,J
W.P.No.3003 of 2021
c) Cases of old and decrepit prisoners as defined in Rule 321(h) of
Andhra Pradesh Prison Rules, 1979, read with G.O.Ms.No.44, Home
(Prisons.B2) Department, dated 16.03.2007 shall be considered for
release.
d) Cases of convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life
including those governed by Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) aged more than 65 years
and have undergone an actual sentence of 5 years including remand
period and total sentence of 7 years including remission as on
26.1.2019 shall be considered for release."
6. The case of Mr. Ankati Gopala Rao @ Gopala Krishna Murthy was placed
before the Committee constituted and the Committee rejected his case holding as
follows:
i. The Medical Board Members have not certified that
"the said convict is unable to commit of
organized crime after his release", which is one of
the essential conditions of G.O.Ms.No.44, Home
(Prisons.B2) Department, dated: 16-03-2007.
ii. The said prisoner was convicted for life sentence in the
murder case of a Sarpanch who is a public servant.
Hence, the case of the said prisoner attracts barring
clause No.xiv, Para-8 of the said G.O. and hence the
said convict ineligible for grant of Special Remission.
2. In view of the reasons stated above, the Committee has
rejected the case of CT No.2094, Ankati Gopala Rao @
Gopala Krishna Murthy S/o Venkatadri of Central Prison,
5 HCJ & NJS,J
W.P.No.3003 of 2021
Rajamahendravaram for grant of Special Remission as per
G.O.Ms.No.6, Home (PAROLES) Department, dated
09-01-2019."
7. In the context of the observations made by the aforesaid Committee, it will
be appropriate to refer to paras 4, 5 & 6 of the judgment rendered in
W.P.No.12192 of 2019, which reads as follows:
"4. However, a counter came to be filed by the Deputy
Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram,
disputing the averments made in support of the writ petition and
opposing the release of the father of the petitioner by extending the
remission under the said G.O.
5. It is stated that since the Government has decided to review and
recommend the cases of life convicted prisoners, issued guidelines in
G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 9.1.2019, giving one-time exemption to consider
special remission in the cases of old and decrepit prisoners as
defined in Rule 321(h) of Andhra Pradesh Prison Rules, 1979 read
with G.O.Ms.No.44, Home (Prisons.B2) Department, dated
16.3.2007. As the case of the petitioner falls under the purview of
the condition specified at para 7(c) of G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 9.1.2019,
the 4th respondent placed the matter before the Internal Committee
constituted for scrutinizing the cases of Life Convicted Prisoners
eligible for premature release. The Scrutiny Committee met in the
Office of the Director General of Prisons & Correctional Services,
A.P., Vijayawada on 22.1.2019 and observed the following:
i. The Medical Board Members have not certified that "the said
convict is unable to commit organized crime after his release", which
6 HCJ & NJS,J
W.P.No.3003 of 2021
is one of the essential conditions of G.O.Ms.No.44, Home
(Prisons.B2) Department, dated 16.3.2007.
ii. The said prisoner was convicted for life sentence in the murder
case of a Sarpanch who is a public servant. Hence, the case of the
said prisoner attracts barring Clause No.xiv, Para-8 of the said G.O.
and hence the said convict is ineligible for grant of Special
Remission.
6. Having regard to the fact that the Medical Board not certified that
the convict is unable to commit organized crime after his release,
which is one of the essential conditions in G.O.Ms.No.44, the
committee rejected the case of the detenu herein. It is further
stated that as on 26.1.2019, the convicted prisoner has undergone
sentence of 9 years, 7 months and 5 days, including remand period
and has not completed 10 years of sentence including remission as
required under the G.O. It is said that the convicted prisoner was
released on 30 days parole on 7.6.1999 vide G.O.Rt.No.266, dated
6.2.1999, which was extended up to 7.12.1999 vide G.O.Rt.No.1714,
dated 7.7.1999. Though he was due for surrender on 8.12.1999, the
convicted prisoner failed to do so and he was apprehended on
25.3.2014 i.e., after 14 years, 9 months and 24 days. Apart from
that it is also stated that since convicted prisoner is convicted in a
murder of public servant, he is ineligible for grant of special
remission as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.6, dated
9.1.2019, more particularly para-xiv of the guidelines in category-II.
Having regard to the factors, namely, (i) overstaying on parole for a
period of 14 years, 9 months and 24 days, (ii) Medical Board not
certifying that the said convict is unable to commit organized crime
7 HCJ & NJS,J
W.P.No.3003 of 2021
after his release and (iii) since he is involved in a murder of public
servant, states that the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit
under the said G.O."
8. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment goes to show that the contention
advanced on behalf of the petitioner that Mr. Ankati Gopala Rao @ Gopala Krishna
Murthy is entitled to grant of special remission under clause 7(b) of G.O.Ms.No.94
dated 27.08.2020 having undergone total sentence of 10 years including
remission as on 15.08.2020, was, in essence, negatived. With regard to
alternative case set out that the case of Mr. Ankati Gopala Rao @ Gopala Krishna
Murthy falls under clause 7(c), it was noted that the father of the petitioner being
aged about 65 years and having been suffering from incurable Hemiplegia (left)
and ischemic heart disease, there is no dispute that the disease with which the
father of the petitioner is suffering, comes under the category of pre-mature
release as defined under Rule 321(h) of Andhra Pradesh Prison Rules, 1979 read
with G.O.Ms.No.44 dated 16.03.2007. The Court noted that G.O.Ms.No.44 dated
16.03.2007 required the Medical Board to certify that the convict is incapable of
doing any real work and would appear to be unable to commit organized crime
after his release, provided that such prisoner completes five years of actual
sentence and seven years of total sentence as recommended by the National
Human Rights Commission. This Court opined that the convict satisfied the
requirement of completion of five years of actual sentence and seven years of
total sentence, but as the Report of the Medical Board was silent as to whether
because of the ailment with which the convict is suffering, would prevent him
from committing organized crime, direction at para 12 extracted supra was
issued. The Court rejected the other ground cited for rejecting pre-mature
release that having been involved in murder of public servant, he is not entitled
for any benefit under the G.O., by holding, on perusal of the materials on record,
8 HCJ & NJS,J
W.P.No.3003 of 2021
that though the convict had committed the murder of a public servant, but it was
not while the public servant was discharging his official duty. It is to be noted
that plea of overstaying on parole was also cited as a ground for refusal to grant
remission in the counter-affidavit though the Committee did not take that as
ground while rejecting the case of the petitioner.
9. Subsequent to the aforesaid direction, the convict prisoner was produced
before the Medical Board on 27.11.2019.
10. The Medical Certificate issued by the Board consequent upon examination
on 27.11.2019 has not been brought on record either by the petitioner or by
respondent No.5 in the counter-affidavit. Both the petitioner and respondent
No.5 has brought on record letter dated 02.12.2019 issued by the
Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Kakinada to the Superintendent,
Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram. It will be appropriate to extract relevant
portion of the aforesaid letter dated 02.12.2019.
" As per the reference 1st cited, the Old, decrepit life convict
prisoner by name Sri A.Gopala Krishna Murthy, 65 years, attended
the medical board on 19.01.2019 and medical report issued by the
board members was submitted to the Superintendent of Jails,
Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram vide this office Rc.No:
192/G1/2018 Dt:-19.01.2019. In the letter it was clearly given that
the above convict is suffering with "Inurable Hemiplegia (Left) and
Ischemic Heart Disease-Underwent PTCS-Has Left Ventricular
dysfunction & Congestive Lt.V.failure and also noted that he needs
daily activities to perform daily activities with throughout the life and
medically managed by the Specialist Doctors". Basing on the report,
the said diseases comes under the category of point 05-congestive
9 HCJ & NJS,J
W.P.No.3003 of 2021
heart failure and point no:12-Incurable paraplegia and hemiplegia
vide G.O.Ms.No:44 Home (Prisons B2) department dt:-16.03.2007.
Further, the said convict prisoner was referred to the medical
board again vide reference 2nd cited, stating that to examine him
and issue certificate whether the health problem comes under the
categories of diseases as per G.O.Ms.No.44 Home (Prisons B2)
department dt:-16.03.2007 and whether he would be in a position to
commit organize crime after his release (or) not.
In this connection, he was medically examined by the board
members again on 27.11.2019 and the following specialists of this
hospital/board members opined that the said convict is suffering
with the problem of "Cerebro Vascular Accident left hemiplegia,
DM/HTN with CAD post PTCA with LVF/LVD on medication" and the
said diseases comes under the category of point 05-congestive heart
failure and point no:12-incurable paraplegia and hemiplegia vide
G.O.Ms.No.44 Home (Prisons B2) department dt:16.03.2007 and the
same was given in the previous report submitted to the
Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison, Rajamahendravarm which
holds good. He can't be able to perform his daily activities without
assistant due to his illness and needs lifelong medication with the
consultation of the Neurology Specialist. Regarding asking of
commit organize crime by the convict after his release doesn't arise
since he cannot perform/commit crime on his own according to his
present mental/physical condition.
1. Dr.H.Vijay Kumar, Prof. of General Medicine,
RMC/GGH, KDA
10 HCJ & NJS,J
W.P.No.3003 of 2021
2. Dr.V.Vara Prasad, Assistant Prof. of Psychiatry,
RMC/GGH, Kakinada
3. Dr.R.Gowtham Praveen, Asst. Prof. of Neurology, RMC,
GGH, Kakinada
This is for your information and the letter OP Ticket examined
by the said doctors with their opinions are sending herewith for
taking further action at your end."
11. As no action was taken on the basis of the aforesaid letter dated
02.12.2019, a writ petition was filed, which was registered as W.P.No.1029 of
2020. The Court took note of the observations made in the order dated
28.09.2019 and since the matter was under consideration, it was observed that
there was no need to pass any specific order, and while disposing of the writ
petition by order dated 10.03.2020, it is further observed that whatever
observation had been made by the Court, it was for the disposal of the writ
petition and that the same would not come in the way of disposal of the
representation of the petitioner.
12. Since no action was taken by the State even after more than 10 months
had elapsed from the date of passing of the order dated 10.03.2020, the present
writ petition came to be filed on 05.02.2021, praying for a direction to release
Mr. Ankati Gopala Rao @ Gopala Krishna Murthy.
13. In the counter-affidavit field by respondent No.5, i.e. Superintendent of
Jails, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, it is stated that Medical Board which
examined the father of the petitioner on 27.11.2019, opined that the convict
prisoner cannot perform/commit crime on his own in view of his present
mental/physical condition. It is also stated that the Director General of Prisons
had sent a list of 127 convicted prisoners to the Government pursuant to
11 HCJ & NJS,J
W.P.No.3003 of 2021
G.O.Ms.No.94, Home (Parole-HRC) Department, dated 27.08.2020 granting
special remission to the life convicted persons on the occasion of Independence
Day and in the said list, the name of the father of the petitioner had also figured.
The list was placed before the Committee on 27.08.2020 and the Committee had
recommended grant of pre-mature remission to the father of the petitioner also.
However, subsequently, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.131 dated 05.11.2020 in
supersession of G.O.Ms.No.94, Home (Parole-HRC) Department dated
27.08.2020, making it applicable to the life convicted female prisoners only and,
as such, the father of the petitioner continues to undergo imprisonment in Central
Prison, Rajamahendravaram.
14. Ms. M. Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having
regard to the fact that the petitioner had filed two writ petitions earlier claiming
benefit under G.O.Ms.No.6, Home (Paroles) Department dated 09.01.2019, the
case of the father of the petitioner has to be considered in the light of
G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 09.01.2019 and it is immaterial that G.O.Ms.No.6 dated
09.01.2019 is no longer in existence. The case of the father of the petitioner was,
however, considered and he was recommended for release in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 27.08.2020, which was subsequently superseded by
G.O.Ms.No.131 dated 05.11.2020. Accordingly, she submits that this Court may
direct the respondents-authorities to forthwith release the father of the petitioner
by granting special remission.
15. Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader attached to the Office
of the learned Additional Advocate General - II draws the attention of the Court
to the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is seeking
remission in respect of his father in terms of G.O.Ms.No.94, Home (Parole-HRC)
Department dated 27.08.2020, which was superseded by G.O.Ms.No.131 dated
05.11.2020 and, therefore, prayer made by the petitioner for remission is not
12 HCJ & NJS,J
W.P.No.3003 of 2021
tenable in law. He has also drawn attention of the Court to the order dated
29.01.2021 passed in W.P.No.22488 of 2020, directing the respondents to send
recommendations along with the material concerned as well as the order of the
Court in that writ petition to the Hon'ble Governor to enable him to exercise
power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India.
16. A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, more particularly,
paragraph 7 goes to show that it is asserted by the petitioner that his father's
case has to be considered either under G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 09.01.2019 or under
G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 27.08.2020 and in the prayer also, reference is made for
granting special remission in the light of the observations made by this Court vide
order dated 28.09.2019 in W.P.No.12192 of 2019.
17. In Maru Ram v. Union of India, reported in (1981) 1 SCC 107, at
paragraph 72, while formulating findings in respect of power under Articles 72
and 161 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at
sub-paragraph 8, stated as follows:
"(8) The power under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution can
be exercised by the Central and State Governments, not by the
President or Governor on their own. The advice of the appropriate
Government binds the Head of the State. No separate order for
each individual case is necessary but any general order made must
be clear enough to identify the group of cases and indicate the
application of mind to the whole group.
18. In the case of Pyare Lal v. State of Haryana, reported in (2020) 8 SCC
680, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and while
his appeal was pending consideration, it came to light that the appellant having
completed 8 years of actual sentence and he being aged about 75 years, in
13 HCJ & NJS,J
W.P.No.3003 of 2021
accordance with the policy of the State Government, he was pre-maturely
released. The State being called upon to file an affidavit indicating whether the
policy permitted pre-mature release even before completion of actual sentence of
14 years in connection with an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC,
response was filed by the State Government indicating that on the occasion of
Independence Day, in exercise of powers conferred by Article 161 of the
Constitution of India, the Governor of Haryana was pleased to grant special
remission to certain categories of persons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
the individual facts and circumstances of the case were not placed before the
Governor and the Governor did not have the occasion to look into the issues.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case had occasion to
extensively consider the decision rendered in the case of Maru Ram (supra). In
paragraphs 12, 13 and 15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated as follows:
"12. However, the question that arises is whether in exercise of
power under Article 161 of the Constitution, a policy could be laid
down setting out certain norms or postulates, on the satisfaction of
which the benefit could thereafter be conferred upon or granted to
the convicts by the executive without even placing the individual
facts and material pertaining to the case of the convict, before the
Governor. It is true that in Conclusion (8) in para 72 in Maru Ram
[Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107 : 1981 SCC (Cri)
112] there are observations that no separate order for each
individual case would be necessary but a general order must be
clear enough to identify the group of cases and indicate the
application of mind to the whole group. The basis for such
conclusion is in the discussion in the paragraphs quoted
hereinabove but at the same time the order issued on 18-7-1978 in
14 HCJ & NJS,J
W.P.No.3003 of 2021
exercise of powers conferred under Article 161 of the Constitution
which in an omnibus way had granted benefit to the convicts, did
not meet with the approval of the Court. Further, the observations
in para 69 in Maru Ram [Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC
107 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 112] indicate that the remission and short-
sentencing schemes then in existence could be taken as good
guidelines for exercise of pardon power. To similar effect are the
observations in para 70.
13. The decisions of this Court rendered since Maru Ram [Maru
Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 112] and
some of them being decisions of the Benches of three Judges of
this Court, do show that the relevant material must be placed
before the Governor in order to enable him to exercise the power
under Article 161 of the Constitution and failure on that count could
result in quashing of the orders concerned of remission issued
under Article 161 of the Constitution. For example, the observations
in para 13 in Swaran Singh [Swaran Singh v. State of U.P., (1998)
4 SCC 75 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 804] , and those in paras 34 and 67 in
Epuru Sudhakar [Epuru Sudhakar v. State of A.P., (2006) 8 SCC
161 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 438] emphasise that the power must be
exercised depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case
concerned and based on facts and materials of the case. The
observations have also gone to the extent of stating that the
entirety of the matter must be before the Governor for exercise of
power under Article 161 of the Constitution and that all the relevant
aspects including seriousness of the crime and the manner in which
the crime was committed must also be part of the consideration.
15 HCJ & NJS,J
W.P.No.3003 of 2021
That exercise of power alone, where all the relevant facts and
circumstances of the case were considered, is to be accepted to be
correct and valid."
15. Considering the fact that some of the observations in Maru Ram
[Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107 : 1981 SCC (Cri)
112] including the last sentence in Conclusion (8) in para 72 were
relied upon by Mr Shikhil Suri, learned advocate to submit that the
exercise of laying down the norms by a policy was correct and that
the appellant was rightly granted remission; and as the decision in
Maru Ram [Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107 : 1981
SCC (Cri) 112] was rendered by the Constitution Bench of this
Court, in our considered view, the present matter is required to be
placed before a larger Bench."
20. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had framed the following question
for placing the matter before a Larger Bench:
"Whether in exercise of power conferred under Article 161 of the
Constitution a policy can be framed, whereunder certain norms or
postulates are laid down, on the satisfaction of which the benefit of
remission can thereafter be granted by the executive without
placing the facts or material with respect to any of the cases before
the Governor and whether such exercise can override the
requirements under Section 433-A of the Code."
21. In W.P.No.22488 of 2020, at paragraph 9, this Court observed as follows:
The question now is, whether the petitioners can be ordered to be
released by issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus. We are afraid that
such a relief, namely, releasing the convicts, cannot be ordered in
16 HCJ & NJS,J
W.P.No.3003 of 2021
this petition, but, however, as observed earlier, the Standing
Committee totally erred in rejecting their request for release. In
view of the observation/ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Pyare
Lal's case (supra) and Ashok Kumar's case (supra), we hereby
direct the Standing Committee or the Authority concerned to
forthwith send the recommendations along with material concerned
in terms of the order passed by this court in this Writ Petition to the
Hon'ble Governor, as early as possible, preferably within a period of
three months from today, enabling him to exercise power under
Article 161 of the Constitution of India."
22. We find substance in the argument of Ms. M. Vidyavathi, learned counsel
for the petitioner, that the case of the father of the petitioner should have been
considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.6, Home (Paroles) Department, dated
09.01.2019. Two writ petitions came to be considered by this Court and the claim
of the father of the writ petitioner cannot be defeated because of efflux of time.
Pursuant to the direction of this Court, opinion of the Medical Board had also been
obtained. It is also seen from the stand taken in the counter-affidavit filed by
respondent No.5 that the case of the father of the petitioner was considered
favourably for grant of release, albeit, under G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 27.08.2020.
23. In view of the discussions above, we dispose of this writ petition with a
direction to the respondents to place the matter before the Committee for
consideration of the Medical Report within a period of (2) weeks from today.
Thereafter, the Committee shall send its recommendation within a period of (3)
weeks to the Hon'ble Governor of Andhra Pradesh along with all material
particulars pertaining to Mr. Ankati Gopala Rao @ Gopala Krishna Murthy, such as
opinion of the Medical Board, the order dated 28.09.2019 in W.P.No.12192 of
2019 and the order dated 05.01.2021 in W.P.No.22488 of 2020 passed by this
17 HCJ & NJS,J
W.P.No.3003 of 2021
Court, a copy of this order, a copy of the recommendation made by the
Committee while considering the case of Mr. Ankati Gopala Rao @ Gopala Krishna
Murthy in terms of G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 27.08.2020, for consideration of the
Hon'ble Governor and for passing appropriate orders. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
MRR
