Polavarapu Lakshmi Sirisha vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(AP) 633

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, JJ.
Polavarapu Lakshmi Sirisha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No.17333 of 2022
Decided on : 19-10-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : KADIYAM NEELAKANTESWARA RAO

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 –Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 – Section 3(2) r/w 3(1) – Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner challenging detention of her husband, under order of detention in passed by 2nd respondent – Collector & District Magistrate, East District under Section 3(2) r/w 3(1) of Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 and prayed to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith – Held, Order of confirmation and continuation of detention was made after expiry of three months from date of arrest and detention of petitioner – Petitioner inter alia challenged detention order on ground that confirmation order was passed by Government after expiry of three months and hence arrest and detention was illegal – It was contended by State that Section-12(1) of Act does not lay down in any express terms the time within which State Government has to confirm the detention order and make a decision to continue detention of detenue – Apex Court held that though Section-12 does not in express terms lay down that decision to confirm detention order has to be made before expiry, such a time limit is implicit in Section – Ultimately, detention order was set aside – Writ petition allowed.

ORDER :

U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenging the detention of her husband Sri Polavarapu Nooka Raju, S/o Dandu, under order of detention in ROC.No.Magrl./52/2022, dated 30.04.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent – The Collector & District Magistrate, East Godavari District under Section 3(2) r/w 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (1 of 1986) [for short, ‘the Act 1 of 1986’] and prayed to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.

2. The 2nd respondent has passed the detention order dated 30.04.2022 on the ground that the detenue was involved in following eleven cases and thus he is a ‘Bootlegger’ within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act 1 of 1986 and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order.

1	Cr.No.800/2021, dt: 28.09.2021 u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition Act of Bommuru P.S
2	Cr.No.10/2022, dt: 09.01.2022, u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(b) of AP Prohibition Act of Bommuru P.S
3	Cr.No.77/2022, dt: 06.02.2022, u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition Act of Bommuru P.S
4	Cr.No.688/2021, dt: 09.06.2021, u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act No.18 of 2020. 1995 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station.
5	Cr.No.917/2021, dt: 24.07.2021, u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act No.18 of 2020. 1995 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station.
6	Cr.No.921/2021, dt: 25.07.2021, u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act No.18 of 2020. 1995 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, South Rajamahendravaram.
7	Cr.No.1092/2021, dt: 28.08.2021, u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act No.18 of 2020. 1995 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, South Rajamahendravaram.
8	Cr.No.1373/2021, dt: 25.07.2021, u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act No.18 of 2020. 1995 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, South Rajamahendravaram.
9	Cr.No.1517/2021, dt: 11.11.2021, u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act No.18 of 2020. 1995 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, South Rajamahendravaram.
10	Cr.No.1723/2021, dt: 17.12.2021, u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act No.18 of 2020. 1995 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, South Rajamahendravaram.
11	Cr.No.385/2022, dt: 23.02.2022, u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act No.18 of 2020. 1995 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, South Rajamahendravaram.

3. The detention order is challenged in this writ petition on the grounds that the detenue is an innocent person and not committed any of the offences mentioned in the detention order; the cases in which he is involved can be effectively dealt with under the general law and his activities are not prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order; out of eleven crimes, which were taken as a ground for issuing detention order, the detenue was granted bail in ten cases even before the date of detention order and the said fact was not taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority while passing the detention order; the petitioner made a representation to the Government on 20.06.2022 requesting to set aside the detention order and release her husband but so far the 1st respondent has not considered the same and passed any order and due to inordinate delay in considering the representation, the detention became illegal; though more than three months elapsed after the date of detention order, so far the Government neither passed the confirmation order and issued the G.O nor set aside the detention order in terms of Section-12 and he