C. Ammuda v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Chief Secretary, General Administration (Law and Order) Dept., Secretariat, Velagapudi Village, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh.

The Collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

The Superintendent of Police, Chitoor, Chitoor District, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District.

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa YSR Kadapa District. … Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to produce Detenue B. Chandra Shekar, 5 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.19256 of 2025 S/o. Late Bhoopalan, aged about 51 years presently detained in Central Prison, Kadapa before this Honourable court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith/set at liberty after declaring his detention vide REV- CSEC0PDL(PRC)/1/2025-MAGL4, dated 05.06.2025 passed by the 2nd

Respondent as confirmed in G.O.Rt.No.1326, General Administration (Law and Order) Department, dated 14.07.2025 passed by the 1st respondent after receiving the report of the advisory board dated 27.06.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and void and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. S DUSHYANTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL 6 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.19256 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, the learned Government Pleader appearing in the office of the learned Advocate General.

2. The 2nd respondent-District Collector, Chittoor had passed an order of detention, under the provisions of the A.P. Prevention of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drugs offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟), against the husband of the petitioner, on the ground that he was a Bootlegger, as defined under the Act, and that there was a need to place him under preventive detention in view of his activities and involvement in five criminal cases under the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, as amended in 2023 and under the provisions of the A.P Excise Act. This order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent- Collector was approved by the 1st respondent-Government, by way of G.O.Rt.No.1152, dated 11.06.2025.

3. After the said order of approval, the government sent the case file and all the other material, connected to the above proceedings, to the Advisory Board. At that stage, the petitioner herein had filed a representation before the 1st respondent-Government, on 18.06.2025, which is said to have been received on 19.06.2025. This representation was also forwarded to the Advisory Board, without any decision taken by the 1st respondent- Government, on the said representation. The Advisory Board after hearing the 7 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.19256 of 2025 detenue and considering the material before it, had, by proceedings, dated

27.06.2025, held that there was sufficient cause for detention of the detenue. After receipt of this opinion and recommendation from the Advisory Board, the 1st respondent-Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1326, dated 14.07.2025, placing the husband of the petitioner, under preventive detention, for a period of 12 months from 06.06.2025, in Central Prison, Kadapa.

4. Aggrieved by these proceedings, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit disputing of the said grounds.

The petitioner has raised various grounds in the Writ Petition. However, Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner pressed only one ground before us and the same is being considered.

Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy would contend that the representation of the petitioner, dated 18.06.2025, had to be considered by the 1st respondent- Government and could not have been sent to the Advisory Board for consideration. At best, the 1st respondent-Government should have taken a decision on the representation and thereafter sent the representation also to the Advisory Board. Failure of the 1st respondent-Government, to consider this representation is fatal to the entire proceedings as it is violative of Article 22 of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Act. The learned counsel relies upon the following Judgments: 8 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.19256 of 2025

1. Amritha vs. Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad.1

2. Ankit Ashok Jalan vs. Union of India and Ors.2

3. Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and Ors.3

4. Pramod Singla vs. Union of India and Ors.4

The learned Government Pleader, fairly concedes that the the 2nd respondent has implicitly admitted, in his counter affidavit, representation of the petitioner, dated 18.06.2025, had not been considered by the 1st respondent and had been sent to the Advisory Board for its consideration. However, the learned Government Pleader would rely upon Section 10 of the Act to contend that the provisions of Section 10 require the government to forward any representation received on behalf of any detenue, to the Advisory Board and it is the Advisory Board which would be the authority to consider all such representations. He would contend that in such circumstances, the non consideration of the representation of the petitioner, dated 18.06.2025, is not fatal to the proceedings which are impugned in the present Writ Petition. Consideration of the Court:

Article 22 of the Constitution of India, which permits preventive detention has also mandated certain non-negotiable conditions, for placing any person under preventive detention. Article 22 reads as follows: