D.S.R.Varma, J.

Heard Sri L.Ravi Chander, learned Counsel, representing Sri Milind G.Gokhale, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of Writ of habeas corpus directing respondents 2 and 3 to produce the detenue, namely, Md.Ayub Ali Ahmed, son of Md.Shujath Ali, C.T.No.6739, who is lodged in Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy district and set him at liberty in the interest of justice.

3. The factual background that led to the filing of the writ petition is that the detenue, namely, Md.Ayub Ali Ahmed, was convicted along with two others in Sessions Case No.202 of 1989 by the I Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 498-A, 302 and 307 of IPC, by judgment dated 06-01-1993 and he was sentenced to undergo 'life imprisonment', pursuant to which the detenue was taken into custody and was lodged in the prison and he has been undergoing the punishment. Subsequently, the appeal filed by him challenging the judgment rendered by the trial Court also was dismissed resulting in confirmation of the judgment rendered by the trial Court.

4. Be that as it may, in the year 2000 the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued G.O.Ms.No.18, HOME (PRISONS-C) DEPARTMENT, dated 25-01-2000, granting pardon to the detenue as well as various other life convicts, basing on their behaviour and other relevant aspects. Consequently, the detenue was released owing to the extension of benefit under the said G.O., having served the sentence of imprisonment for 71/2 years. After release, the detenue has started new life by taking up a new avocation.

5. It appears that all of a sudden, the Police of Chaderghat Police Station had taken the detenue into custody on 25-4-2006 without any intimation or furnishing any details whatsoever for his detention, whisking away to Central Prison, Cherlapally and since then he has been languished in jail.

6. At the outset, it is to be noted that subsequent arrest of the detenue had taken place on 25-4-2006 but no plausible explanation has been coming forth for filing this writ petition in the year 2009.

7. Since the issue involved in this writ petition is related to the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court has taken into cognizance.

8. It further appears that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued a clarification by way of issuing Memo No.SA2/349/ 2001-II, dated 28-02-2002, to G.O.Ms.No.18, under which the detenue was set at liberty. It further appears that subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.190, HOME (PRISONS-C) DEPARTMENT, dated 07-8-2004, also was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

9. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that at least on the strength of the said G.O.Ms.No.190, dated 07-8-2004, the detenue ought to have been released extending the benefits mentioned therein.

10. At this stage itself, we feel it convenient to mention that the said G.O.Ms.No.190, dated 07-8-2004, has no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as the same deals with the convicts released under different circumstances, particularly pursuant to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.17, HOME (PRISONS-B.2) DEPARTMENT, dated 17-01-2003, which again is nothing to do with the present set of facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, we are not placing any reliance on the original G.O., or the clarificatory G.O.Ms.No.190, dated 07-8-2004. We are subjecting the present controversy to judicial scrutiny only on the anvil G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 25-01-2000.

11. But, having released the detenue extending the benefits under G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 25-01-2000, cannot re-arrest him without taking the recourse of law.

12. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said act of re-arrest of the detenue on 25-4-2006 is total