Pithani Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVEMMENTFAC, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,REVENUE(EXCISE-II) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. CAUSE TITLE WITH RESPECTIVE TO NO.2 WAS AMENDED AS PER C.O.DT.28.01.2026 VIDE I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN W.P.NO.17126 OF 2025.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶17

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶18

THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

2

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the constitution of India directing the 4th respondent to produce Pithani Appala Raju, who is now detained in Central Prison ,Visakhapatnam before this Honble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention vide G.O.RT.No.363 ,dt.28.04.2025 ,passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the orders passed in G.O.Rt.No.518 ,dt.30.05.2025 Revenue (Excise - II) Dept., as illegal and un constitutional and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.Main prayer was amended as per c.o.dt.28.01.2026 Vide I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.No.17126 of 2025.

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to order amendment of the cause title in W.P.No. 17126 of 2025 of this Hon’ble Court by amending the 2nd respondent as “The Principal Secretary to Govemment(FAC), Revenue(Excise- II) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi at Velagapudi, Guntur District” instead of “The Principal Secretary to Govemment(FAC), State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi at Velagapudi, Guntur District” and pass

¶24

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to order amendment of the prayer in W.P.No.17126 of 2025 as “issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the constitution of India directing the 4th respondent to produce Pithani Appala Raju, who is now detained in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam before this Hon’ble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention vide G.0.RT.N0.363, dt. 28.04.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the orders passed in G.O.Rt.No. 518, dt.30.05.2025 Revenue(Excise-II) Dept., as illegal and un constitutional and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case” instead of “issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the constitution of India directing

¶26

3

¶27

the 5th respondent to produce Pithani Appala Raju, S/o krupa rao who is now detained in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam before this Hon’ble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention vide G.O.RT.NO.363, dt. 28.04.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the orders passed in G.O.Rt.No. 518, dt.30.05.2025 General Administration (Law and Order) Dept., as illegal and un constitutional and pass

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶29

1.D PURNACHANDRA REDDY

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

1.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

4

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO: 17126/2025

¶36

ORDER: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)

¶37

Sri I. Prakash, learned counsel representing Sri D. Purna Chandra

¶38

Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the period of detention under the impugned order has already been completed and consequently, the petition has been rendered infructuous and the petition be dismissed as infructuous.

¶39