Point of law: Section 9 of the Act provides for constitution of Advisory Boards and Section 10 requires the Government to place before the Advisory Board the grounds on which the order of detention has been made and the representation, if any, made by the person affected by the order, and in the case where the order has been made by an officer, also the report by such officer under Section 3(3) within three weeks from the date of detention of the person. Section 11(1) requires submission of the report by the Advisory Board to the Government within seven weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned.

ORDER :

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, J

This petition, in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus, was filed praying for release of C. Venkatesh, son of the petitioner, who is lodged in Central Prison, YSR Kadapa, and to set him free, after declaring his detention under Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’), as unconstitutional and illegal.

2. The second respondent-Collector & District Magistrate, Chittoor, passed an order dated 13.08.2020 in exercise of power conferred under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(1) of the Act and also keeping in view public interest, to detain the son of the petitioner from the date of service of the order upon him and to lodge him in Central Prison, YSR Kadapa. The grounds of detention in English and Tamil and the material in support thereof were served to the petitioner.

3. In the aforesaid order, it was indicated that the case of the son of the petitioner would be referred to the Advisory Board for review and opinion under Section 10 of the Act and it was also noted that the detenu would have a right to make representation (i) to the Collector & District Magistrate, Chittoor, before the order is approved by the Government or (ii) to the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, or (iii) to the Advisory Board or to all of them.

4. Heard Mr. D. Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service only one ground, namely, unexplained delay in disposal of the representation submitted by the son of the petitioner, to contend that the order of detention is unconstitutional and illegal, which is sought to be controverted by Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, by placing reliance on the averments made in Paragraph 16 of the counter-affidavit filed by urging that delay, if any, has been appropriately explained and, therefore, no interference is called for with the order of detention of the detenu.

6. Mr. D. Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel, submits that the representation was submitted to the Government on 12.10.2020, which was received on 16.10.2020, and the same was rejected on 02.12.2020, which is after 47 days of the date of submission of representation. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India and others, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 476, Abdul Nasar Adam Ismail v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 435 and P. Aruna Kumari v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine AP 653.

7. Having regard to the contours of controversy as presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will not be necessary for us to refer to the grounds based on which the order under Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act was passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor.

8. A perusal of Section 3 of the Act goes to show that the Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person of the class of persons as indicated in Section 3(1) that with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. Section 3(2) of the Act provides that the Government, if satisfied that it is necessary, by order in writing, direct, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of jurisdictions of the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police, the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also exercise the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Act for such duration as may be specified in the order of the Government. The proviso to Section 3(2) l