K. SWAPNA, W/O A.KAMAL KISHORE, 27 YEARS, D.NO. 28 Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD, AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed by the wife of A.Kamal Kishore (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') assailing proceedings vide Roc.No. C2/1352/2016 dated 15-03-2016 of respondent No. 2 as confirmed by G.O.Rt.No. 943 General Administration (Law & Order) Department dated 02-05-2016 and issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus for setting the detenu free from detention.

(2.) In the manner we propose to dispose of the Writ Petition, it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. It will suffice to note that, one of the legal grounds on which the detention is challenged is that, there is undue delay in disposal of the representation of the wife of detenu and that, therefore, the detention is liable to be declared as unconstitutional on this ground alone. The petitioner pleaded that against the detention of the detenu, the petitioner has made her representation on 03-05-2016 to respondent No. 1 and that it is only in the third week of June, 2016, that the rejection order was served on the detenu in jail. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, (1999) 1 SCC 417 in support of his submission that unexplained delay in disposal of the representation vitiates the detention order. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner's representation dated 03-05-2016 was received by respondent No. 1 on 16-05-2016 (learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the date 16-05-2016 is a mistake for 11-05-2016), that on 19-05-2016, the Government called for remarks from respondent No. 2, that respondent No. 2 submitted the remarks through his letter dated 21-05-2016 and the same was received by respondent No. 1 on 08-06-2016. He has further submitted that after receipt of the remarks, respondent No. 1 has considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same on 16-06-2016.

(3.) Learned Special Government Pleader placed before us the record, a perusal of which shows that the remarks purportedly sent through letter dated 21-05-2016 are shown to have been received at the end of respondent No. 1 on 08-06-2016. Though on the top of the remarks, an endorsement is made to the effect that the same were received by speed post with certain numerals written thereunder and the same was shown to have been received on 08-06-2016, the speed post cover has not been available on file. Moreover, the seal placed on the first page of the remarks, which also purports to show that it is received on 08-06-2016 by Rs.&O Section, does not contain any signature. Except the submission of respondent No. 1 that he has sent the remarks through speed post on 21-05-2016, no material is placed in support of the said averment. Assuming that respondent No. 1 has received the remarks on 08-06-2016 as noted above, there is no material on record to show that respondent No. 2 has sent the remarks on 21-05-2016. When the communication inviting the remarks was sent by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 on 19-05-2016 and respondent No. 2 could receive the same before 21-05-2016, we do not find any reason whatsoever for the remarks stated to have been sent by respondent No. 2 taking 18 days' time to reach respondent No. 1.