IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 8930 of 2009 Between: Smt.G.Sushma W/o.Guntur Pavan Kumar @ Pavan @ Lara R/o.Priyadarshini Colony, Bhavanipuram Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajahmundry, E.G. District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents herein to produce the detenu viz., Guntur Pavan Kumar @ Pavan @ Lara S/o. George, aged 28 years, presently detained in Central Prison, Rajahmundry before this Hon'ble Court and order for his release, after declaring his detention as illegal and void, in the interest of justice, and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: KOLLU RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) The petitioner, who is the wife of detenu, namely, Guntur Pavan Kumar @ Pavan @ Lara, filed this writ petition challenging the detention order dated 23.2.2009 passed against her husband by the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, Vijayawada, the second respondent herein, detaining him under the provisions of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug - Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act No.1 of 1986’). The grounds of detention enclosed along with the detention order discloses that the detenu was arrested in Crime No.72 of 2004 of Law and Order, Suryaraopet P.S., Vijayawada City, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 326 r/w 34 IPC and Crime No.310 of 2005 of Law and Order, I Town P.S., Vijayawada for the offences punishable under Sections 324 r/w 34 IPC. In spite of the fact that he arrested and convicted in both cases, he continues to be indulging violent activities, again Crime Nos.24 of 2003 of I Town Crime P.S., Vijayawada City, for the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC, Crime No.73 of 2006 of L & O Suryaraopet P.S., Vijayawada City, for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 324 and 326 r/w 34 IPC, Crime No.363 of 2006 of L & O I Town P.S., Vijayawada City, for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC and Crime No.487 of 2008 of L & O Krishna Lanka P.S., Vijayawada, for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC were registered. In all the above cases, the detenu was arrested and enlarged on bail. As the detenu was continuously involving in the violent activities, the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, after satisfying himself that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and his activities are causing widespread danger to public health, so as to prevent the detenu from further indulging in such activities in future, in exercise of the power vested in him under sub- section (2) of Section 3 of the Act No.1 of 1986, ordered for his detention until further orders. Pursuant to the order of detention, the detenu was taken into custody on 08.3.2009 and lodged at Central Prison, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. At the time of taking him into custody, the detention order and the material relating to the case were served on the detenu, which was acknowledged by him. The detenu was duly informed that he has a right to make representation to the detaining authority, to the Government and also to the Advisory Board, in compliance of the constitutional/statutory remedy. The Government in G.O.Rt.No.1292, General Administration (L & O.II) Department, dated 16.03.2009 accorded approval to the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada. Thereafter, the Government referred the matter to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the Act, which after hearing the detenu, and the investigating officer, and after going through the connected records, opined that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu. Taking into consideration the opinion given by the Advisory Board, the Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 12 read with Section 13 of the Act No.1 of 1986, confirmed the order of detention through G.O.Rt.No.1646, General Administration (L & O.II) Department, dated 03.04.2009 and directed that the detention of the detenu be continued for a maximum period of 12 months from the date of his detention i.e., from 08.03.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the earlier detention order made by the second respondent on 23.02.2009 in connection with Crime Nos.72/2004, 310/2005, 24/2003, 252/2005, 363/2006 and 487/2008 has been revoked on 6.03.2009 and fresh detention order has been passed contrary to sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act No.1 of 1986. The Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Das v. State of West Bengal and ors.,[1] held that the word ‘revocation’ means annulling, rescinding, withdrawing. In the facts and circumstances of the case orders of release cancelling the orders of detention amount to revocation of orders of detention. The word “expire” means to come to an end or to put an end to, or to terminate or to become void, or to become extinct. The order of release show that the Government accepted the position that the previous order terminated and came to an end and the petitioners were released. The orders of release were revocation of the previous orders of detention. The previous orders of detention also expired when the Government passed orders of release. The second orders of detention are in violation of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, and accordingly set aside the second orders of detention. In view of the above, since the detention order has been passed on the same grounds on which earlier detention order was passed and revoked by the second respondent, the second detention order on the very same grounds cannot be passed. Accordingly we set aside the second detention order passed by the second respondent. The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not involved in any other crime. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. ___________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J.) ___________________ (B.CHANDRA KUMAR J.) 9th June, 2009 Js. [1] (1975) 3 SCC 335