Chikkala Maileswari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

¶22

2

¶23

pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly like one in the nature of Writ of HABEAS CORPUS by declaring the Order of Detention dated 25.08.2025 vide Ref.No.M1/533175/2025, passed by the Second Respondent (District Collector) and as confirmed by the First Respondent vide GO.Rt.No.1632, dated 04.09.2025 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith release the husband of the Petitioner viz., Chikkala Rambabu, S/o Aravalu, who is lodged in Central Prison, Rajahmundry and pass

¶24

IA NO: 1 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 pleased to direct the Respondents to release the husband of the Petitioner viz., Chikkala Rambabu, S/o Aravalu temporarily pending the above Writ Petition and pass

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶27

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 permit the Petitioner to raise the following additional grounds in support of the above Writ Petition No.26757 of 2025 and pass

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶29

1.M R K CHAKRAVARTHY

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

1.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

3

¶34

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

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO: 26757/2025

¶36

ORDER: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)

¶37

Heard Sri V.Cheetan Susheel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Keerthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

¶38

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed by the petitioner for release of her husband and for setting aside the order of the detention dated 25.08.2025 passed by the District Collector under Section 3(1) & (2) R/W Section 2(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders And Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act No.1 of 1986), as illegal.

¶39

The District Collector has passed the order of detention dated 25.08.2025 taking into consideration five criminal cases. So, the order is passed on 5 grounds. After the report of the Advisory Board, the order of detention has been confirmed by the State. The present petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders.

¶40

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the grounds of challenge to the Order of detention dated 25.08.2025 that the said fact i.e., grant of bail in five cases is not considered by the District Collector.

¶41

Sri Keerthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned Government Pleader referring to the counter affidavit submits that the District Prohibition and Excise Officer, East

¶42

4

¶43

Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram submitted proposals to the District Collector on 18.08.2025 and by that time there was no bail granted in any of the five cases. Consequently, there was no occasion for the bail orders to be considered in the order of the detention of the District Collector by the District Prohibition and Excise Officer, there was no such material to be placed.

¶44

We are of the view that, that cannot be a reason not to place the bail orders before the District Collector after the bails were granted prior to passing of the Detention Order.

¶45

There is no dispute on the aspect that the detenue was granted bail in five cases prior to the detention order dated 25.08.2025 may be for the reason that the material which was placed before the District Collector as in the proposal of the District Prohibition and Excise Officer there could be no mention of the bail

¶46

orders. We are of the view that in view of the subsequent developments taking place with respect to five cases, the detenu having been granted bail such material should also have been placed before the District Collector by filing additional material by the District Prohibition and Excise Officer but the same was not done.

¶47

The detenu is entitled for consideration of all the material before the order of detention is passed. Consequently, the order of detention suffers from illegality of non - production and so non-consideration of relevant material by the Detaining authority.

¶48

It could also not be shown that the confirming authority considered the grant of bail in 5 cases while confirming the order of detention.

¶49

5

¶50

This writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order of detention and the order of confirmation. The Detenu shall be set at liberty immediately, if he is not required in any other case. Since, we have set aside the order on the ground of non-consideration of the relevant material which was not brought to the notice of the District Collector, we provide that the respondent- District Collector shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. However, in case any order of detention has to be passed afresh, the period of detention shall not exceed in total 12 months including the period already served pursuant to the impugned detention orders.

¶51

No order as to costs.

¶52

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

¶53

___________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J

¶54

_____________________________________ PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI,J

¶55

Dated:09.07.2026 AG

¶56

6