WP/14153/2025 of Boopathy Sivamani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 10 February 2026

1. BOOPATHY S 22 YEARS, R/O POST, PELAM

1. THE STATE O CHIEF SEC AMARAVATHI

2. THE COLLECT DISTRICT.

3. THE SUPERIN

4. THE SUPERIN Petition under A in the circumstance Court may be please one in the nature o constitution of India Govindan S/o. Go HE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRU O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDR AND RABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GE

WRIT PETITION NO: 14153/2025 SIVAMANI,, W/O. SIVAMANI GOVIND O. NALLALAPET, CHENGAM, PELA ARATHUR, TIMVANNAMALAI, TAM ...P AND OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESEN CRETAIY,

SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTR TOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATI D NTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, KAD ...RESPO Article 226 of the Constitution of India es stated in the affidavit filed therew ed to issue writ order or direction mor of writ of Habeas Corpus under Artic directing the 4th respondent to produ ovindan, who is now detained in Ce DESH

UARY RANATH ROY EDELA DAN, AGED AMARATHUR IL NADU. PETITIONER NTED BY ITS BUILDINGS, ICT E, TIRUPATI ISTRICT. DAPA. ONDENT(S): a praying that with, the High re particularly cle 226 of the uce Sivamani entral Prison,

Kadapa before this Honble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention vide RC.C 1/194/2025, dt. 22.03.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 837, dt.02.05.2025 General Administration (Law and Order) Dept., as illegal and un-constitutional and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.14153 of 2025 O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

Assailing the order of preventive detention dated 22.03.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent - Collector & District Magistrate, Tirupati, against the detenu by name Sivamani Govindan @ Siva Mani @ G. Sivamani, the instant writ petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu on the ground that the representation filed by the writ petitioner to the State Government to reconsider the order of preventive detention was not disposed of within a reasonable period of time and that there is inordinate delay of 87 days in disposing of the said representation.

2. Heard Mr. D. Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

3. The detenu, by name Sivamani Govindan @ Siva Mani @ G. Sivamani, is the husband of the petitioner. Given the fact that about seven crimes were registered against the detenu under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the A.P. Forest Act relating to the illegal transportation of red sanders, the 2nd respondent – Collector & District Magistrate, Tirupati, who is the detaining authority, after considering the report submitted by the sponsoring authority, was of the view that as the detenu has been repeatedly indulging in commission of the similar nature of offences and as his acts are found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, an order of preventive detention is required to be passed against him in public interest. Therefore, he has passed an order of preventive detention against the detenu on 22.03.2025. The same was forwarded to the State Government, as required under law, for confirmation and it was considered and confirmed by the State as per G.O.Rt.No.837 General Administration (SC-I) Department dated 02.05.2025.

4. The writ petitioner, in exercise of the right conferred on her under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), has submitted a representation to the State Government to reconsider the order of preventive detention passed by the detaining authority. The said representation was not considered within a reasonable time and it was disposed of with a delay of 87 days. Therefore, on the said ground that the representation was disposed of with an inordinate delay of 87 days, the present writ petition has been filed to declare further detention of the detenu as illegal and to set the detenu at liberty.

5. Counter has been filed by the respondents. It is admitted that there is a delay of 87 days in considering and disposing of the representation filed by the writ petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu. However, the delay has not been properly explained. It is only stated that as the District Collector has sent his report with a delay, the representation of the writ petitioner could not be considered within a reasonable period of time. However, it is stated that as the detenu has been indulging in illegal activities of transporting red sanders, which is the public property, and spoiling the atmosphere in the forest, the detaining authority is justified in passing the impugned order of preventive detention and that the State Government has rightly confirmed the same. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. The short point that arises for determination in this writ petition is whether the delay in disposing of the representation filed by the wife of the detenu, which is an inordinate delay of 87 days, vitiates the further detention of the detenu and whether the detenu is entitled to be set at liberty or not.

7. The legal position in this regard is not res integra and the same has been well settled. The Division Bench of the common High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Vasanthu Sumalatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, after considering the earlier precedents rendered on the point of the Apex Court and the High Courts, held at para 118 of the judgment as follows:

“In all the aforesaid cases, no explanation is forthcoming, in the counter-affidavits filed before this Court, for the delay in considering the representation. The delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu would vitiate only the continued detention of the detenu, and not the detention order. By reason of the delay, only further detention of the detenu is rendered illegal and unconstitutional.”

8. Following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment, this Court, in W.P.No.21954 of 2025, as per the order dated 08.12.2025, also held that when there is a delay in disposal of the representation filed to reconsider the order of preventive detention and when no 12016 (2) ALD (Crl.) 156

explanation is offered by the State for the said delay, as per the settled law, it renders the further detention of the detenu illegal and unconstitutional and thereby, allowed the said writ petition declaring the further detention of the detenu therein as illegal and unconstitutional and ordered to set the detenu therein at liberty.

9. Therefore, in view of the law enunciated in the aforesaid judgments, the further detention of the detenu in this case also is to be held illegal and unconstitutional, as admittedly there is a delay of 87 days in considering and disposing of the representation filed by the writ petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, to reconsider the impugned order of preventive detention passed against the detenu.

10. Ergo, the writ petition is allowed, declaring the further detention of the detenu by name Sivamani Govindan @ Siva Mani @ G. Sivamani, who is the husband of the petitioner, as illegal and unconstitutional. Consequently, the detenu is ordered to be released forthwith and he shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

______________________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 11.02.2026 IBL

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

WRIT PETITION No.14153 of 2025

Dt: 11.02.2026 IBL