Kalapala Theodar Dore vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5096 AP

     HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

              MAIN CASE No.: W.P. No.25020 of 2022

                          PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                          Office
       DATE                                ORDER
No                                                                           Note

1.    10.08.2022 CMR, J
                                  W.P.No. 25020 of 2022

                       Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home
                takes notice for respondents 1 to 5 and requests time to

obtain instructions.

Post the matter on 23.08.2022.

________ CMR, J

I.A.No.1 of 2022

The impugned order was passed in terms of Section 3(3) of the A.P. Prevention of Anti-Social and Hazardous Activities Act, 1980 (for short „the Act‟), against the petitioner to remove himself from the NTR Police Commissionerate limits for a period of six months with effect from the date of receipt of the said order by imposing the conditions mentioned in the said order.

The order also shows that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal before an appropriate forum within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no Tribunal under the act has been constituted till now to enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. Therefore, he would submit that the instant Writ Petition has been filed in the said facts and circumstances of the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered in the case of Velpula Pullaiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1999 5 ALD 640 = 2000 1 ALT (Cri) 182 wherein it is held as follows at para No.6:

"The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The State Government and its functionaries and the authorities created under the A.P. Prevention of Anti-Social and Hazardous Activities Act, 1980 are directed not to pass any orders under the Act in future till a Tribunal in terms of Section 6 of the Act is constituted."

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh as it is stated that no such Tribunal is still constituted under Section 6 of the Act and in view of the aforesaid direction of the Court, the impugned order is suspended till the next date of hearing.

________ CMR, J

AKN