Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 84 (2.92 seconds)
Documents citing Pesala Nookaraju vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 August, 2023

Sunil Chachuda vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 29 January, 2024

12. From the scheme of the Act as noted above and as per the judgement of the Apex Court in Pesala Nookaraju (supra), once the confirmatory order of detention is passed under Section 12 (1) of the Act i.e., a final order and the State Government has no authority to review its order. If in the confirmatory order any particular period of detention is prescribed by the State Government such detention order is valid only for that period. If no period of detention is prescribed in an order and passed under Section 12 (1) of the Act, then, such detention will be for a maximum period of 12 months as prescribed under Section 13 of the Act. However, once the order under Section 12 (1) is passed by the State Government prescribed a period of detention, the said order cannot be reviewed or extended by the State Government. Such detention will be over after the expiry of the period prescribed in the confirmatory order passed under Section 12(1) of the Act. The said order cannot be reviewed or extended any further. However, the Detaining authority i.e., the State Government or the District Magistrate, may pass a fresh order in terms of Section 3(2) of the Act, if the circumstances so demand. Such concerned detention order has to be confirmed again following the procedure prescribed under Sections 3, 10, 11 and 12 of the Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S Varma - Full Document

Smt. Subhadra Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 3 February, 2026

In the case of Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others5 the Supreme Court held that the power of preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention. It is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or may not relate to an offence. It is not a parallel proceeding. It does not overlap with prosecution even if it relies on certain facts for which prosecution may be launched or may have been launched. An order of preventive detention may be made before or during prosecution. It may also be made with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal.
Tripura High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - T A Goud - Full Document

Amritpal Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 16 April, 2026

(v) Pesala Nookaraju Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2023) 4 SCC 641 10.5 In the said case, the Apex Court was dealing with an order of preventive detention passed u/s 3 (2) of Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous erous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, where the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court had upheld the order of preventive detention. The Apex Court dismissed the appeal by upholding the order of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court and laid down certain principles, essentially in respect of the period of detention, subjective satisfaction of detaining authority, concept of law and order vis vis-à-vis vis public order and also the history of writ of habeas corpus. The law laid down in this judgment also does not assist the petitioner in any manner, as the factual matrix in the said case is different.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prakash S/O Beerappa Mudhol vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2025

3. This Court cannot grant any indulgence on the first three grounds based on the decision in W.P.H.C. No.100003/2014 because of the decision in Pesala Nookaraju vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others [supra]. As regards the reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ameena Begaum, this Court must opine that there are no pleadings if the petitioners cannot succeed on 2 [2023] 14 SCC 641 3 (2015) 13 SCC 722 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2311-DB WP No. 100146 of 2025 the first three grounds in the light of the Apex Court's later decision in Pesala Nookaraju, he must be at liberty to question the merits of the confirmation order dated 12.12.2024 in view the exposition in Ameena Begaum. In the light of the afore, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner, subject to all just exceptions including the observation that the petitioner will not be entitled to urge the first three grounds that are considered.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - B M Prasad - Full Document

Krishnapriya K P vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2023

[2023 SCC online SC 1003] In Pesala Nookaraju v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court has considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of W.P. (Crl). No.889 of 2023 3 Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 as also Articles 22(4) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India and held that if any period is specified in the confirmatory order, then, the period of detention would be up to such period, if no period is specified, then it would be for a maximum period of 12 months from the date of detention.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Sivaraman - Full Document

Rema Vijayalal vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2023

[2023 SCC online SC 1003] In Pesala Nookaraju v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court has considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of W.P. (Crl). No.712 of 2023 3 Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 as also Articles 22(4) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India and held that if any period is specified in the confirmatory order, then, the period of detention would be up to such period, if no period is specified, then it would be for a maximum period of 12 months from the date of detention.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Sivaraman - Full Document

Abdul Rahman Alias Nanni vs Adhichhak Janpad Karagar Ghaziabad And ... on 5 February, 2024

The said judgement in Cherukuri Mani (Supra), has been overruled by the Apex Court in a recent judgement in Pesala Nookaraju (supra), and has held that when the State Government passes a confirmatory order under Section 12 of the Act after receipt of the report from the Advisory Board then, such a confirmatory order need not be restricted to a period of three months only. It can be beyond a period of three months from the date of initial order of detention, but up to a maximum period of twelve months from the date of detention. The Apex Court has further held that the continuation of the detention pursuant to the confirmatory order passed by the State Government need not also specify the period of detention; neither is it restricted to a period of three months only. If any period is specified in the confirmatory order, then the period of detention would be upto such period, if no period is specified, then it would be for a maximum period of twelve months from the date of detention. The State Government, in our view, need not review the orders of detention every three months after it has passed the confirmatory order.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Varma - Full Document

Prabhulla P vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2023

[2023 SCC online SC 1003] In Pesala Nookaraju v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court has considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of W.P. (Crl). No.852 of 2023 3 Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 as also Articles 22(4) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India and held that if any period is specified in the confirmatory order, then, the period of detention would be up to such period, if no period is specified, then it would be for a maximum period of 12 months from the date of detention.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Sivaraman - Full Document

Dharavath Laxmi vs The State Of Telangana on 20 June, 2025

9. The SGP relies on the recent decisions of the Supreme Court including the case of Pesala Nookaraju Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1 to contend that the seized samples which were found to be unfit for human consumption, constitute activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, thereby justifying the detention of the manufacturer/seller of the liquor. It is argued that the Detaining Authority duly considered the material on record and arrived at a subjective satisfaction of the necessity for detaining the petitioner and that there is no scope of interference with the impugned order.
Telangana High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next