Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Unknown vs 9.02.2022 Ahsanuddin Amanullah on 9 February, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: W.P.No.3386 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
ORDER
No DATE NOTE
1. 09.02.2022 AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J and RAVI NATH TILHARI, J (Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah) Heard Mr. Thandava Yogesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Khader Mastan, learned Government Pleader, attached to the Office of learned Additional Advocate General-II, for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has moved the Court, for the following relief:
" ...to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus declaring the action of the respondents in detaining Sri Pamarthi Srinivasa Rao, S/o Yedukondalu, aged 42 years, R/o.Kovvurugudem Village, Chintalapudi mandal, West Godavari District, in Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram vide proceedings dated 21.11.2021 vide Rc.No.C1/e- 1867256/2021 passed by the 2nd respondent which was approved by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.51 General Administration (SC.I) Dept dated 11.01.2022 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violation of the judgments of this Hon'ble Court in Palasani Satynarayana Murthy v. The Collector and District Magistrate, Kakinada and others ((1996) 4 ALT 643), Challa Venkateswara Rao v. Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna District, Machilipatnam and others ((2004)6 ALD 816(DB) and orders in W.P.No.16919 of 2004 dated 07.10.2004; consequently
a)set aside the proceedings issued vide Rc.No.C1/e-1867256/2021 dated 21.11.2021 and G.O.Rt.No.51 General Administration (SC.I) Dept dated 11.01.2022 and b) direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Hon'ble Court from Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram and he may be ordered to be released forthwith; and
c)direct the respondents to pay compensation to the detenue for his illegal custody at the rate of Rs.3000/- per day from the day of custody till the date of his release; and pass such.."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order of detention, primarily, relied on the decision of the then unified High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Challa Venkateswara Rao v. Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna District, Machilipatnam and others, (2004) 6 ALD 816 (DB) dated 27.10.2004, for the proposition that in similar circumstances, an order passed under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1/86) was set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the said judgment would not help the petitioner for the reason that at the relevant point of time indulging in such type of activity was not prohibited under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.
5. After some arguments, as prayed for by learned counsel for the respondents, the matter be listed on 10.02.2022.
_________________________________ (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J) ___________________________ (RAVI NATH TILHARI, J) Pab