APHC010384552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.19443 of 2025 Between: 1. YANDRA DURGA BHAVANI, W/O YANDRA SATTI BABU, AGED 25 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. MANGAVARAM VILLAGE, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR, EXCISE POLICE STATION PAYAKARAOPETA, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.19443 of 2025 ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHITTIMURI RAGHAVULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.19443 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.19443 of 2025 O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Challenging the legal validity of the order of preventive detention dated 03.06.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent - Collector & District Magistrate, Anakapalli District, against the husband of the petitioner, by name Yandra Satti Babu (hereinafter referred to as ‘detenu’), which, in turn, was confirmed by the State as per G.O.Rt.No.1319, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 11.07.2025, 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 respondents. 3. About three crimes were registered against the detenu for the offences punishable under the A.P. Prohibition Act. As the detenu has been indulging in commission of the said offences repeatedly, the 2nd respondent - detaining authority was of the opinion that his acts in committing the said offences are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that an order of preventive detention is required to be passed against him to prevent him from committing the said offences in future in the larger interest of the public. Therefore, the 2nd respondent, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.19443 of 2025 Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), has passed the order of preventive detention dated 03.06.2025 against the detenu. The said order was considered and confirmed by the State by G.O.Rt.No.1319, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 11.07.2025. 4. The said order of preventive detention is now assailed by the petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, on the ground that the petitioner has submitted a representation to the detaining authority to re-consider the order of preventive detention passed by him and to set aside the same on the grounds urged by her in the said representation. It is her grievance that the said representation, which was submitted by her in exercise of the right conferred on the detenu under the Act, was not considered by the detaining authority and it vitiates further detention of the detenu and thereby, prayed to order for release of the detenu forthwith. 5. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit. Perused and considered the same. 6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has reiterated the pleas taken in the counter-affidavit and he would submit that the petitioner has not submitted the representation directly to the 2nd respondent-detaining authority and she has submitted her representation through the Public Grievance Redressal System and the same was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police, after considering the same, found that the said offences relate to the Prohibition and Excise Department and therefore, he closed the same. He further contends that as per the settled law as decided by the Division Bench of the common High 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.19443 of 2025 Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vasanthu Sumalatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, when the representation that was submitted by the detenu was not considered and when there was a delay in considering the said representation, it does not render the order of preventive detention invalid, but it only renders the further detention of the detenu illegal and unconstitutional. So, he submits that the impugned order of preventive detention cannot be set aside on the said ground declaring it as illegal. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted a representation to reconsider the order of preventive detention passed against the detenu on the basis of the grounds that were urged in her representation. A right was conferred on the detenu to make a representation to the detaining authority either by himself or by his family members. So, it is a statutory right conferred on him to make a representation to reconsider his order of preventive detention. In exercise of the said right, the petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, has submitted a representation. The said fact is not controverted before this Court. But, the said representation was not submitted directly to the detaining authority or through proper channel. She has submitted the representation through Public Grievance Redressal System. The same was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police of the District. He, instead of forwarding it to the detaining authority who is the 2nd respondent - Collector & District Magistrate, has closed the same by taking an erroneous view that it relates to the Prohibition and Excise Department and not to the crimes that are within his purview. But, the fact remains established is that the representation submitted by the 1 2016 (2) ALD (Crl.) 156 6 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.19443 of 2025 petitioner was not considered as it did not reach the 2nd respondent - detaining authority. 8. Therefore, when a representation was submitted by the petitioner to reconsider the order of preventive detention passed against the detenu and when the same was not considered for whatever reason it may be, as per the settled law, it renders the further detention of the detenu illegal and unconstitutional, as per the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of the common High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the above cited judgment. At paragraph 118 of the said judgment, after referring to the earlier precedents of law rendered on the point, the Division Bench of the common High Court held 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 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.” 9. Therefore, as the representation made by the petitioner to reconsider the order of preventive detention passed against the detenu was not considered due to the erroneous decision taken by the Superintendent of Police in not forwarding the said representation to the detaining authority, we are of the considered view that the further detention of the detenu in the present case is illegal and unconstitutional. 7 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.19443 of 2025 10. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed to that extent, declaring that the further detention of the detenu, by name Yandra Satti Babu, is illegal and unconstitutional. Consequently, the detenu shall be released forthwith and 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, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY ______________________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 05.12.2025 IBL 8 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.19443 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.19443 of 2025 Dt: 05.12.2025 IBL