IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI And THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 21994 of 2004 Between: D. Hussainamma w/o Dudekula Bala Hussain, Aged: 28 years, R/o Tadpatri, Anantapur district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Collector and District Magistrate, Anantapur. 2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Chief Secretary, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Cherlapalli. .....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 a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under Art 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondents to produce the detenue (Petitioner's Husband) Sri Dudekula Bala Hussain, now detained in Central Prison, Cherlapalli, before this Hon'ble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention as illegal and void Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No 1to 3.: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court, at the stage of admission, made the following: Oral order: (Per: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bilal Nazki) The detention of the husband of the petitioner has been challenged in this writ petition. The detenue has been detained in terms of an order dated 01-10-2004 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Anantapur in terms of Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’). Counter has been filed. Record is produced. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Advocate General. Various grounds have been taken to challenge the order of detention. One of the grounds taken is that the detenue was not informed by the detaining authority that the detenue has a right to make a representation to the detaining authority. In the counter affidavit it is not disputed. However, it is stated that it could not vitiate the order of detention of the detenue. This court has already considered and held by order dated 09-12-2004 in W.P.No. 20160 of 2004; 20559 of 2004; 21086 of 2004 and 20629 of 2004 that if the detenue is not informed that he has a right to make a representation against the order of detention to the detaining authority, it would be an infraction of right guaranteed to the detenue under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the detention order passed in this case can be quashed on that ground alone. Since we are quashing the order of detention on the ground mentioned hereinabove alone, there is no need to deal with other grounds. As a result, this writ petition is allowed. The order of detention is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the detenue from the custody forthwith, if not required in any other case. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _____________________ BILAL NAZKI, J ______________________ Dr. G. YETHIRAJULU, J Dt. 13-12-2004 Pvks/* To 1. The Collector and District Magistrate, Anantapur. 2. The Chief Secretary, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Cherlapalli. 4.2CCs to the Advocate General, A.P. High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 5.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ }