D RAMASWAMY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA, REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (L&O)DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Writ Petitions have been filed for issue of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to release the detenus by setting aside the respective detention orders as confirmed by respondent No.1 in G.O.Rt.No.576, dt.24-3-2018 and G.O.Rt.No.575, dt.24-3-2018, respectively.

(2.) At the outset, it needs to be noted that the initial detention orders passed by respondent No.2 were challenged in W.P.No.5756 of 2018 and W.P.No.5782 of2018, respectively. A Division Bench of this Court repelled the challenge on merits and upheld the detention orders. However, questioning the orders passed by respondent No.1 confirming the detention orders by the impugned G.Os., these Writ Petitions are filed on behalf of the detenus.

(3.) At the hearing, Sri C.R. Sudhakar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned orders confirming the detention orders passed by respondent No.2 are liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the period of detention has been specified as 12 months contrary to Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short the Act). In support of his submission, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Poosala Narasayya Vs. State of A.P, (2006) 2 ALD(Cri) 267 wherein, considering the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, it was held that the State can extend the period of detention for a period not exceeding three months at any one time and therefore the order of confirmation of detention for a period of 12 months at a time is not sustainable.