WP/35030/2025 of Koppisetti Lakshmi Bhavani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 6 April 2026

1. KOPPISETTI LAKS GEDDADA SATYA D.NO.2-58/2,

GOLLAPROLU MAN

1. THE STATE OF AN SECRETARY GEN A.P SECRETARIA DISTRICT.

2. THE COLLECTOR DISTRICT, KAKINA

3. THE SUPERINTE KAKINADA.

4. THE SUPERINTEN WOMEN, RAJAMA Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased topleased to issu E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 35030/2025 SHMI BHAVANI,, W/O K SRINU BAB ANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 30 SETTIBALIJA PETA, KODAVA NDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT AND NDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED NERAL ADMINISTRATION (S.C.I) D AT,

VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVA R AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ADA. ENDENT OF POLICE, KAKINAD NDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL AHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High ue writ order or direction more partic DESH

DRANATH ROY GEDELA BU, D/O LATE YEARS, R/O LI VILLAGE, ...PETITIONER BY ITS CHIEF DEPARTMENT, ATI, GUNTUR E, KAKINADA DA DISTRICT, PRISON FOR DISTRICT. SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be ularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the constitution of India, directing the Respondent No.4 to produce the detenu i.e Geddada Raghava, W/o Late G Satyanarayana, who is now detained in Special Prison for Women, Rajamahendravaram, before this Honble Court and the detenu may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring the detention vide REV02- MAGL0PDL/4/2025-MAGL-SEC-KKD CO, dt.02-08-2025, passed by the Respondent No.2 which was confirmed by the Respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt.No.1776, dt.24-09-2025 General Administration (Law and Order) Department, as illegal and un constitutional and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. KARRE SATYANANDAM Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order of preventive detention dated 02.08.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent-The Collector and District Magistrate, against a person by name Geddada Raghava, which in turn was confirmed by the 1st respondent-State, as per G.O.Rt.No.1776 GAD (SC-I) dated 24.09.2025.

2. The petitioner is the daughter of a person by name Geddada Raghava (hereinafter referred to as ‘detenue’), wife of late G.Satyanarayana. About six cases were registered against the detenue relating to the offences punishable under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, under Section 7(A) read with 8(e). Therefore, the sponsoring authority made a request to the 2nd respondent-detaining authority to pass an order of preventive detention against the detenue on the ground that she has been frequently indulging in commission of the aforesaid offences punishable under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, public safety and public health. The detaining authority has considered the material placed before him and he was of the opinion that as the detenue has been repeatedly indulging in commission of the aforesaid offences that an order is required to be passed against her to detain her preventively to prevent her from committing the said offences in the interest of maintenance of public order. Therefore, he has passed the impugned order of preventive detention against the detenue. The said order was in turn confirmed by the State, as per G.O.Rt.No.1776 GAD (SC-I) dated 24.09.2025.

3. The petitioner sought to assail the impugned order on the ground that there is inordinate delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation made by the petitioner to re-consider the order of preventive detention.

4. The State has filed a counter opposing the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that though there is a delay in considering the representation of the petitioner, the said delay has been explained stating that as remarks of the detaining authority are not submitted in time that there is a delay in considering the representation of the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Admittedly, there is a delay of 118 days in disposing of the representation made by the petitioner to re-consider the order of preventive detention. It is well settled law that the right to submit a representation before the Government to re-consider the order of preventive detention is a valuable right conferred on the detenue by the statute. If any such representation is made, law requires the State to consider the said representation and dispose of the same expeditiously, without any unreasonable delay. As noticed supra, there is 118 days of delay in considering the said representation by the State. It is sought to be explained by the State stating that as the detaining authority did not submit the remarks, called for, immediately, that the said delay of 118 days in considering the representation took place. The said explanation is not satisfactory. In the impugned order of preventive detention itself it is stated that the representation submitted by the detenue shall be disposed of within two months. If the remarks of the detaining authority are not submitted immediately, the State cannot keep the representation pending for months together and thereafter, dispose of the same. Therefore, as per settled law when there is a delay in considering the representation of the detenue and when the same is not properly explained, it vitiates the further detention of the detenue, though not the order of preventive detention. The legal position in this regard has been dealt with by this Court in writ petition No.14153 of 2025 as per order dated 11.02.2026 with reference to the earlier precedents rendered on the point by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of the Common High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed, declaring the further detention of the detenue by name Geddada Raghava, who is the mother of the petitioner, as illegal and unconstitutional. Consequently, the detenue by name Geddada Raghava shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

Date: 07.04.2026 MDP