APHC010431872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI WRIT PETITION NO: 21954/2025 Between: 1. RAJESWARI,, W/O. BABU @ BABU NAIDU, AGED 41 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 22, BODINAYUDU KANDRIGA, KIZAHVANAM VILLAGE AND POST, ARAKKONAM TALUKA, RANIPETA DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT SMUGGLING TASK FORCE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21954/2025 RAJESWARI,, W/O. BABU @ BABU NAIDU, AGED 41 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 22, BODINAYUDU KANDRIGA, KIZAHVANAM VILLAGE AND POST, ARAKKONAM TALUKA, RANIPETA DISTRICT, TAMILNADU ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RED SANDERS ANTI SMUGGLING TASK FORCE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3418] THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA RAJESWARI,, W/O. BABU @ BABU NAIDU, AGED 41 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 22, BODINAYUDU KANDRIGA, KIZAHVANAM VILLAGE AND POST, ARAKKONAM TALUKA, RANIPETA DISTRICT, TAMILNADU ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI AT THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TIRUPATI, OF POLICE, RED SANDERS ANTI SMUGGLING TASK FORCE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, KADAPA, YSR ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the 2 CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.21954 of 2025 nature of writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the constitution of India directing the 4th respondent to produce Ajith Babu @ Ajith S/o. Babu @ Babu Naidu, who is now detained in Central Prison, Kadapa before this Honble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention vide REF RC.C 1/383/2025, dt. 10.06.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 1325, dt. 14.07.2025 General Administration (Law and Order) Dept., as illegal and un constitutional and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL 3 CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.21954 of 2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Assailing the order of preventive detention dated 10.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2-The Collector and District Magistrate of Tirupati, against the detenu by name Ajith Babu @ Ajith, who is the son of the petitioner, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the official respondent Nos.1 to 4. 3. Perused the counter affidavit filed by the State. 4. About five crimes were registered against the son of the petitioner by name Ajith Babu @ Ajith (hereinafter referred to as ‘detenu’, for short) for the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code, 1860. As the detenu has been indulging in commission of crimes of similar nature repeatedly, the 2nd respondent-detaining authority was of the opinion that his acts in committing the crimes repeatedly are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and an order of preventive detention is required to be passed to prevent him from committing the said offences in the larger interest of public. Therefore, he, in exercise of his powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter called for short ‘the Act’), has passed the impugned order of preventive 4 CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.21954 of 2025 detention dated 10.06.2025. The said order was considered by the 1st respondent-State and by G.O.Rt.No.1325 General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 14.07.2025 has confirmed the said order of preventive detention. Thereafter, the petitioner being the mother of the detenu has submitted a written representation on 16.07.2025 to the Government in exercise of the right conferred on her under the provisions of the Constitution. The said representation submitted by her was received by the Chief Secretary of the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 18.07.2025. But the said representation was not considered by the State within reasonable time. 5. Therefore, on the ground that the representation filed by the petitioner was not considered by the State and that it vitiates the order of further detention of the detenu, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the legal validity of the further detention of the detenu. 6. After the writ petition was filed, the State has filed its counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated that the representation of the petitioner was infact considered and it was rejected on 14.10.2025 as per G.O.Rt.No.1888 General Administration (SC-I) Department dated 14.10.2025. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that when the representation that was filed by the petitioner was infact considered and it was rejected, it will not vitiate either the order of preventive detention or the further detention of the petitioner and he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5 CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.21954 of 2025 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, countering the said arguments, would submit that the representation filed by the petitioner was not considered immediately within a reasonable time and he submits that only after the writ petition was filed, the representation was considered with an inordinate delay and thereafter, it was rejected and even the delay in considering the representation makes the further detention of the detenu illegal and unconstitutional, as per the settled law and he prayed to allow the writ petition and to order for release of the detenu. 8. Therefore, the short question that arises for determination in this writ petition is whether the delay in disposing of the representation filed by the petitioner against the order of confirmation of the preventive detention makes the further detention of the detenu illegal or unconstitutional and whether the detenu is entitled for release or not. 9. The legal position in this regard is not res integra and the same has been well settled. The order of preventive detention was confirmed by the Government on 14.07.2025. Immediately thereafter, within two days the petitioner has submitted a representation on 16.07.2025 to re-consider the said order of preventive detention as well as the order of confirmation of the said preventive detention. Admittedly, it was received by the Chief Secretary of the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 18.07.2025. Therefore, the Government is required to consider the said representation and dispose of the same either by accepting the same and releasing the detenu after setting 6 CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.21954 of 2025 aside the order of preventive detention or rejecting the same within a reasonable time. It cannot sit over the representation for an unreasonable period of time without passing any order on it. On the ground that the said representation was not considered, the writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 18.08.2025. Thereafter, that is after filing the writ petition, the Government has rejected the said representation after considering the same on 14.10.2025. Thus, there is abnormal and inordinate delay in considering and disposing of the representation filed by the petitioner. There is almost delay of about 75 days in considering the representation for more than two months period. 10. It is well settled law that when there is a delay in considering the representation and disposing of the same, though it will not render the very order of preventive detention illegal, but, it renders the further detention illegal and unconstitutional. The said law has been elaborately discussed by the Division Bench of the Common High Court for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vasanthu Sumalatha and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others1. In the said judgment, the Division Bench of the Common High Court has considered the earlier precedents rendered on the point by the Apex Court and the High Courts and thereafter, laid down the law at para No.120 of the judgment as follows: “In all the aforesaid cases, no explanation is forthcoming, in the counter-affidavits filed before this Court, for the delay in considering the representation. The delay in disposal of the 1(2016) 1 ALT 738 (DB) 7 CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.21954 of 2025 representation of the detenu would vitiate only the continued detention of the detenu, and not the detention order. By reason of the delay, only further detention of the detenu is rendered illegal and unconstitutional.” 11. In the instant case also, in a detailed counter affidavit filed by the State, no explanation is offered for the delay in disposal of the representation filed by the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid law enunciated by the Division Bench of the Common High Court after considering the earlier precedents on the point, the inordinate delay in considering the representation of the petitioner in the present case undoubtedly renders the further detention of the detenu in this case also illegal and unconstitutional. 12. In fine, the Writ Petition is allowed declaring the further detention of the detenu, who is the son of the petitioner by name Ajith Babu @ Ajith as illegal and unconstitutional. As a sequel, the detenu by name Ajith Babu @ Ajith is ordered to be released forthwith and he shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY ______________________________________________ JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 08.12.2025 MDP