Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

S Sandhya Rani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 January, 2023

Bench: A V Sai, Duppala Venkata Ramana

                              1




      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI
                         &
 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

                 W.P. No. 26637 OF 2022

ORDER:(per A.V. Sesha Sai, J)

     Heard Sri D. Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy, learned

Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

The issues in the present Writ Petition arise under

the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of

Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral

Traffic Offenders and Land-grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter

referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner herein is the wife of

the detenue viz., Gajula Prasad, s/o Venkatanarayana.

The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the

order of detention passed by the Collector and District

Magistrate, Annamayya District, vide proceedings Roc:

C1/e-file computer No.3524/2022, dated 14.06.2022,

under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Act as

confirmed by the State Government vide G.O.Rt.No.1647,

General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated

10.08.2022.

On the basis of seven (07) crimes registered by

Pullampet, Railway Kodur, and Mannur Police Stations, for

the alleged offences under the Theft of the National

Property Act, Indian Penal Code, A.P. Forest Act, A.P.

Sandal Wood and Red Sanders Wood Transit Rules, 1969,

and the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act,

1984, the District Collector, by invoking the provisions of

sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 3 of the Act, passed an

order of detention, referred to supra. Subsequently, the

State Government under sub-section (1) of Section 12 read

with Section 13 of the Act confirmed the order of detention

dated 14.06.2022 and directed to continue detention for a

period of twelve (12) months from the date of detention i.e.,

16.06.2022, vide G.O.Rt.No.1647, General Administration

(SC.I) Department, dated 10.08.2022.

Though a number of grounds have been mentioned in

the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, at the time

of hearing, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has

stressed only on the ground that the non-consideration of

the representation made by the petitioner under Clause (5)

of the Article 20 of the Constitution of India, within a

reasonable time is fatal to the order of detention. In

elaboration, it is further contended by the learned counsel

for the petitioner that though the representation dated

26.07.2022 submitted by the petitioner was received by the

State Government on 01.08.2022, the State Government

had taken approximately five (05) months for disposal of

the said representation. In support of his submissions and

contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner places

reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this

Court in the case of P. Aruna Kumari Vs., State of

Andhra Pradesh1.

On the contrary, the learned Additional Advocate

General, strongly resisting the Writ Petition and supporting

the orders of detention contends that having regard to the

reasons assigned in the additional counter affidavit filed by

the 2nd respondent, the action of the respondent-

Government in rejecting the representation of the Writ

2020 SCC Online AP 4614

Petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.2774, General Administration

(SC.I) Department, dated 23.12.2022, cannot be faulted.

In the above background, now the issue that emerges

for consideration is - "having regard to the facts and

circumstances, whether the delay in dealing with the

representation submitted by the petitioner vitiates the

entire order of detention and whether the respondents have

explained the delay properly in the pleadings?"

According to the additional counter affidavit filed by

the Collector and District Magistrate, the wife of the

detenue, who is the petitioner herein, submitted a

representation dated 26.07.2022 and the office of the Chief

Secretary to Government, received the same on

01.08.2022. It is also clear from the additional counter

affidavit that while enclosing a copy of the representation

submitted by the petitioner's wife, the State Government

vide Memo dated 17.08.2022 called for remarks from the

detaining authority i.e., the Collector and District

Magistrate and the Collector and District Magistrate sent

remarks vide Roc.No.C1/3524/2022, dated 19.12.2022

and eventually, the State Government vide

G.O.Rt.No.2774, General Administration (SC.I)

Department, dated 23.12.2022, rejected the said

representation. It is very much lucid from the above

information that the State Government had taken 17 days'

time for calling remarks from the Collector and District

Magistrate and the Collector and District Magistrate, after

four months, sent the remarks on 19.12.2022 and finally,

after four days from the date of receipt of remarks, the

State Government passed an order, rejecting the

representation vide G.O.Rt.No.2774, General

Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 23.12.2022. In

this context, it would be appropriate and apposite to refer

to the judgment referred to supra. In the above referred

decision, a Coordinate Bench of this Court at paragraphs

18 and 19 held as follows:

"18. Reverting to the present Writ Petition, it is significant to note that even according to the counter-affidavit, the representation submitted on behalf of the detenu in the present case was received by the office of the Chief Secretary on 28.08.2020, and the same was sent to the Home Department on 01.09.2020 i.e., after four days the said representation was forwarded to the Home Department. Thereafter, after 4 days i.e., on 04.09.2020, the Home Department sent the said representation to the General Administration Department and it reached the concerned Section on 07.09.2020. Thereafter, vide memo dated 16.09.2020 the State Government called for remarks from the Collector & District Magistrate, Chittoor.

Therefore, it is very much evident from the same that there was delay of 12 days in calling for remarks from the Collector & District Magistrate by the Government. Even thereafter, according to the counter-affidavit, a memo was received by the District Collector on 25.09.2020, who in turn requested the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor to furnish para-wise remarks and the Superintendent of Police furnished the remarks on 28.09.2020. Subsequently, on 05.10.2020 the State Government passed the Orders.

19. It is very much clear that though the remarks were called for on 16.09.2020, it had taken nearly 20 days to conclude the process. It is very much lucid from the above factual situation that the said delay in consideration of the representation submitted on behalf of the detenu, having regard to the principles laid down in the above referred judgments, is undoubtedly fatal to the Order of detention and on the ground of said unexplained delay, the Order of detention is liable to be set aside."

In the considered opinion of this Court, the law laid

down in the above referred judgment is squarely applicable

to the case on hand. As observed supra, the authorities

took nearly five (05) months for reacting to the

representation submitted by the petitioner and the said

aspect is fatal to the order of detention.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is

allowed, setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2nd

respondent vide Roc: C1/e-file computer No.3524/2022, dated

14.06.2022 as confirmed by the State Government vide

G.O.Rt.No.1647, General Administration (SC.I) Department,

dated 10.08.2022 and consequently the detenue viz., Gajula