R.Vennila v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Chief Secretary,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.1321 OF 2016 DATED:08-06-2016 Between:

R. Vennila ... Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Chief Secretary General Administration (Law and Order) Dept., Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad and others ... Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, Senior Counsel, for Smt. B. Mohana Reddy COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: Mr. C.S. Surya Prakash Rao, Special Government Pleader, attached to the Advocate General (AP)

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) This writ petition is filed for a direction to the respondents to release Mr. Periyapayyan Rajendran (hereinafter called 'the detenu') after setting aside the detention order vide Roc.C2/7605/2015, dt.24.11.2015, of respondent No.2, as confirmed in G.O. Rt. No.102, dt.12.01.2016, of respondent No.1.

At the hearing, Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that one of the main issues raised in the writ petition is that the order of detention mentioned that the same was made as the activities of the detenu were found prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and law and order instead of public order. He further submitted that in Vasanthu Sumalatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1] a Division Bench of this Court, dealt with an identical issue and having considered the judgments of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate[2], Ram Monohar Lohia v. The State of Bihar[3], Commissioner of Police v. C. Anita[4]. Kanu Biswas v. State of West Bengal[5], Kishori Mohan Bera v. State of West Bengal[6], Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of W.B[7], Arun Ghosh v.

State of West Bengal[8] Nagendra Nath Mondal v. State of West Bengal[9], Kuso Sah v. State of Bihar[10], Harpreet Kaur v. State of Maharashtra[11], T.K. Gopal v. State of Karnataka[12], and State of Maharashtra v. Mohd.

vitiating the detention order itself. Sri C.S. Surya Prakash Rao, learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General (AP), has fairly conceded that the writ petition on hand is covered by the above-mentioned judgment of the Division Bench in all fours.

In the light of the above submissions and the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above, the impugned detention order and the confirmation order passed against the detenu are set aside and the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The detenu shall be released forthwith from the detention.

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.21309 of 2016 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

__________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J _________________________ G. SHYAM PRASAD, J 08-06-2016 bnr [1] 2016 (1) ALT 738 [2] (1970) 3 SCC 746 [3] AIR 1966 SC 740 [4] (2004) 7 SCC 467 [5] (1972) 3 SCC 831 [6] (1972) 3 SCC 845 [7] (1969) 1 SCC 10 [8] (1970) 1 SCC 98 [9] (1972) 1 SCC 498 [10] (1974) 1 SCC 185 [11] (1992) 2 SCC 177 [12] (2000) 6 SCC 168

[13] (1980) 3 SCC 57