Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kalapala Theodar Dore vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 August, 2022
1
CMR, J.
W.P.No.25020 of 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Writ Petition No.25020 of 2022
ORDER:
This Writ Petition for a mandamus is filed to declare the
action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned order
bearing MC.No.21/Extern/2022, dated 05.08.2022, to remove
the petitioner from N.T.R. Police Commissionerate limits for a
period of six months with effect from the date of the order, as
bad in law, and consequently, prayed to set aside the said order,
dated 05.08.2022, and to direct the 4th respondent not to
interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the
respondents.
3. The impugned order dated 05.08.2022 came to be passed
under Section 3(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Anti-
Social and Hazardous Activities Act, 1980 (for short, "the Act").
It is clearly stated in the impugned order in the last paragraph
that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order that he may
prefer an appeal before the appropriate forum within 15 days
from the date of receipt of the said order. Thus, it is clear that
right of appeal is provided against the impugned order.
Therefore, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the said order, he
has to challenge the legal validity of the said order by way of
preferring an appeal to the appellate authority.
CMR, J.
W.P.No.25020 of 2022
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although
Section 6 of the Act mandates that an appellate Tribunal is to be
constituted to enable the aggrieved person to prefer an appeal
against the orders passed under Section 3(3) of the Act, that the
State Government has not taken steps till now to constitute any
such appellate Tribunal. Therefore, he would submit that the
petitioner could not prefer any appeal against the impugned
order and as such, the instant Writ Petition has been filed in the
said facts and circumstances of the case. He would rely on the
judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh
rendered in the case of Velpula Pullaiah v. Government of
Andhra Pradesh1, wherein it is held at para.6 as follows:
"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."
5. Therefore, relying on the ratio laid down in the aforesaid
judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the impugned order that was passed without constituting the
Tribunal in terms of Section 6 of the Act is bad in law.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would
submit that after the aforesaid judgment was rendered by the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the month of
September, 1999, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has
issued notification in G.O.Ms.No.371 Home (Police) Department,
1999 (5) ALD 640 = 2000 (1) ALT (Cri) 182
CMR, J.
W.P.No.25020 of 2022
on 13.12.1999 empowering all the Principal Sessions Judges of
each Sessions Division, including the Metropolitan Sessions
Judges of Hyderabad, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam Division
to act as appellate Tribunals under Section 6 of the Act for the
purpose of hearing appeals against the order passed under
Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 5 of the Act. He has also
placed on record the copy of the notification issued in
G.O.Ms.No.371, dated 13.12.1999.
7. It is obvious from the aforesaid notification that in exercise
of powers conferred under Rule 13 of the Andhra Pradesh
Prevention of Anti-Social and Hazardous Activities Rules, 1998,
the Government of Andhra Pradesh empowered all the Principal
Sessions Judges of each Sessions Division, and the Metropolitan
Sessions Judges of Hyderabad, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam
Division to act as appellate Tribunals under Section 6 of the Act.
Therefore, the aforesaid judgment relied on by the petitioner is
no more of any use to the case pleaded by the petitioner. As on
the date of the said judgment, which was rendered on
06.09.1999, no appellate Tribunal in terms of Section 6 of the
Act was constituted. Therefore, as the aggrieved person has no
opportunity to challenge the orders passed under Section 3(3) of
the Act by way of preferring an appeal, the aforesaid direction
was given in the above judgment. But, after the said judgment
was rendered on 06.09.1999, subsequently, on 13.12.1999, the
aforesaid notification was issued in G.O.Ms.No.371, constituting
the appellate Tribunals by empowering all the Principal Sessions
CMR, J.
W.P.No.25020 of 2022
Judges of each Sessions Division and the Metropolitan Sessions
Judges of the aforesaid three Metropolitan Regions, to entertain
the appeals preferred against the order passed under Sections 3,
4 and of the Act.
8. Therefore, as the appellate Tribunals are now functioning,
the petitioner has got an efficacious remedy of challenging the
impugned order by way of preferring an appeal to the said
appellate Tribunal.
9. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction
to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order
passed under Section 3(3) of the Act to the appropriate appellate
Tribunal as per the aforesaid notification issued in
G.O.Ms.No.371, dated 13.12.1999. Since, 15 days period of
limitation is prescribed for filing the said appeal from the date of
receipt of the said order, the time spent by the petitioner by way
of filing this Writ Petition from the date of its filing till the date of
disposal, shall be excluded from computing the period of
limitation. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any,
shall also stand closed.
________________________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date:23.08.2022.
cs
