D. S. R. VARMA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is filed by one Smt. Shaik Hasmath Beebi, wife of Shaik Khajavalli, the alleged detenu, seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus declaring that the detention of the alleged detenu as illegal and void.

( 2 ) THE brief facts which are not in dispute are that by an order, dated 3-2-2000, the first respondent-District Collector, East Godavari District, ordered detention of the alleged detenu by exercising jurisdiction under Section 3 (2) read with Section 3 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and consequential arrest of the detenu was effected on 5-2-2000. A representation was made to the second respondent-Government and on such representation, the second respondent-Government confirmed the order of the first respondent-District Collector, East Godavari District, on 18-3-2000, on receipt of the report of the Advisory Board. The period of detention was for one year with effect from 5-2-2000. Questioning the same, Writ Petition No. 2691 of 2000 was filed and the same was dismissed by this Court.

( 3 ) ANOTHER representation was made by the detenu to the Government on 27-4-2000. The same was received by the second respondent-Government on 2-5-2000. On 5-5-2000, the first respondent-District Collector, East Godavari District, was called for remarks. The first respondent-District Collector received the said letter on 8-5-2000, but no remarks were offered by the District Collector. On 7-6-2000 a letter was addressed by the second respondent-Government to the District Forest Officer calling for parawise remarks. The District Forest Officer submitted his remarks on 15-6-2000. The same was received by the first respondent-District Collector on 15-6-2000 itself and the same was forwarded by him to the second respondent-Government on 16-6-2000. After processing the same, the second respondent-Government rejected the said representation on 19-6-2000.

( 4 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the first respondent-District Collector, East Godavari District, on behalf of the respondents. It is stated therein that issue of detention has been decided against the detenu in the earlier Writ Petition No. 2691 of 2000 by a Division Bench of this Court on 28-3-2000 and, hence, the present writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the same grounds are raised in both the writ petitions. Further it is stated that the representation of the detenu, dated 27-4-2000 was made under Section 15 of the Act. It is further stated that the scope of consideration of a representation under Section 15 of the Act is limited inasmuch as Section 15 deals with only temporary release of a detenu and any delay in disposing of the representation does not vitiate the order of detention and such delay does not amount to violation of rights guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution.

( 5 ) IN the light of the above facts, the following points would fall for consideration :- (I) Whether the second writ petition would operate as constructing res judicata in the light of the disposal of the earlier Writ Petition No. 2691 of 2000, dated 28-3-2000? (ii) Whether there is any delay in considering the representation of/or on behalf of the detenu and if so amounts to violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution?

( 6 ) POINT NO. 1 : With regard to Point No. 1, in Writ Petition No. 5277 of 2000 and 5415 of 2000, dated 13-7-2000*, this Bench relying on the decisions rendered in Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 427 : (1981 Cri LJ 286); Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 436 : (1981 Cri LJ 1267); Azam Ali v. Govt. of A. P. , (1992) 1 ALT 141 : (1992 Cri LJ 2597), held that the filing of the second writ petition is not hit by principles of constructive res judicata and is perfectly ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document