GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. KHAJABANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ appeals raise the question of validity of the direction of the learned single Judge directing that the convict be sent to Borstal School under Section 10(A) of the Borstal Schools Act.

(2.) Having regard to the contentions raised by the learned Government Pleader for Home, it will not be necessary to refer to the facts of the case. However, we prefer to note that the connections are covered by the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court. Firstly, it is contended that at the time of issuing direction by the learned single Judge, the adolescent convict should have atleast a minimum period of two years for reformation in the Borstal School. A Division Bench of this Court in State of A.P. v. Komalla Knshnaiah, 1992 (1) ALT 644 dealing with similar submission observed as follows:

(3.) It is secondly contended that in the event of the Court finding that consideration of the case of the adolescent convict by the Government is not proper, it should direct the Government to reconsider the matter but cannot issue the Mandamus to transfer adolescent convict to the Borstal School. Even this contention is covered by the Judgment cited supra as well as by the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court in Government of A.P. v. E.Kumar, 1996 (4) ALD 225. The Court observed as follows: