B SAVITRAMMA Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT POLITICAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the mother of the alleged Detenu B. Siva Prasad, seeking a writ of Hebeas Corpus to set at liberty the alleged Detenu, now detained in the Central Prison, Chanchalguda, and to quash the letter in Ref. No. 13/LandO.II/A1/2000-1, dated 10-1-2000, passed by the first respondent.

(2.) The allegations set out in the writ petition in brief are as follows :-

(3.) From the affidavit, it is further clear that on behalf of the detenu, earlier his wife Smt. Vijaya Lalitha has sent seven copies of representations in the name of the detenu along with a covering letter addressed to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, with a request to send the copies of representations to the authorities mentioned in the grounds of detention. The third respondent, Superintendent, appears to have despatched a copy of representation to the second respondent/State Government and the Government and the said representation has been rejected by the second respondent and the same has been served on the detenu on 12-2-2000. Much stress is laid by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Sri Sampath Kumar on the fact that when the first respondent is the 'Specially Empowered Officer' under the Act till this date, and who passed the order of detention, is duty bound to dispose of the representtaion to revoke that order of detention. According to him, though the second respondent disposed of the representation by way of rejection, the same is of no consequence and is vitiated, inasmuch as the representation was not considered and disposed of by the first respondent, the authority, who made the order of detention. It is further argued that the action of the first respondent in not considering the representation and not passing any order, renders the continued detention of the detenu invalid and unconstitutional. It is also contended that the second respondent/State Government, is bound to satisfy this Court that the representation was considered and disposed of independently uninfluenced by any opinion of the first respondent, detaining authority. It is further stated that the consideration of representation by the second respondent is a dependant consideration and, therefore, the entire consideration of the representation and disposal by the second respondent is invalid and unconstitutional.