SABA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , who is wife of the detenu, seeks a relief against the order of detention, as confirmed by the first respondent, under G.O.Rt.No.720 General Administration (Law and Order) Department dated 29.09.2014 and to consequently, release the detenu from preventive detention.

(2.) THE crucial dates and events may first be noted and they are as follows: Under Order of the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad dated 06.08.2014, while exercising powers under Section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug -Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short the Act), it was ordered that the detenu be detained and lodged in Central Prison, Chanchalguda. The said order was also accompanied by grounds of detention of even date. The detenu was arrested accordingly on 07.08.2014 from the jurisdiction of Habeeb Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad and detained accordingly. The said order of detention was approved by the Government under G.O.Rt.No.388 General Administration (Law & Order) Department dated 18.08.2014 and the State Advisory Board approved the detention as justified. In pursuance of the recommendation of the State Advisory Board, the first respondent has issued G.O.Rt.No.720 dated 29.09.2014 directing detention of the detenu for a period of 12 months from the date of detention. The last of the said orders is questioned in the writ petition, as mentioned above.

(3.) MR . Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, who appeared in support of the writ petition, submitted that the order impugned is not sustainable, as it violates the Constitutional guarantee under Article 22 (4) of the Constitution of India apart from the same being in violation of proviso to Section 3(2) of the Act. Learned senior counsel placed strong reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in CHERUKURI MANI v. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 2014 AIR(SC) 2090 in support of the aforesaid contention. Based on the ratio of the aforesaid decision, learned senior counsel would submit that the detention order passed by the first respondent directing detention for 12 months at a stretch is violative of Constitutional mandate as well as violates proviso to Section 3(2) of the Act.