Pattanaik, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has quashed an order of detention issued under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, inter alia on the ground that the representation of the detenu filed for temporary release under Section 15 of the Act was not disposed of within a reasonable period and thereby the constitutional right guaranteed to the detenu under Article 22(5) was infringed. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether the request of the detenu for being temporarily released, invoking the power of the Government under Section 15 of the Act, if not disposed of early, can it be said that there has been an infraction of Article 22(5) of the Constitution
(3.) The Act in question is undoubtedly an Act providing for preventive detention of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers, for preventing their dangerous activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order. It was enacted to deal with the situation arising out of the activities of a category of persons, which adversely affected public order and it was difficult for the State to deal with such persons on account of their resources and influence. Section 3 of the Act enables the State Government to issue an order of detention, on being satisfied that the activities of the detenu are such that it is necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner, prejudicial to maintenance of public order. Section 3 (3) makes it obligatory to report the fact of detention to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made, when an order of detention is made by an officer other than the State Government under sub-section (2) of Section 3. Section 8 provides for communication of the grounds of detention to the detenu within a maximum period of five days from the date of detention. Section 9 is the provision for constituting an Advisory Board and Section 10 is the provision under which the Government is duty bound to make the reference to the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention. Section 11 is the procedure to be followed by the Advisory Board and Section 12 is the power of the Government to confirm an order of detention on receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board that sufficient cause for detention exists. Under Section 13, maximum period of detention that can be passed under the Act is twelve months from the date of detention. Section 14 is the power of revocation of an order of detention by the State Government. Section 15, which is relevant for our purpose, in the case in hand is the power of the State Government to grant temporary release of the person detained. Therefore, the said section is quoted hereinbelow in extenso : "Section 15 : Temporary release of persons detained :- (1) The Government may, at any time direct that any person detained in pursuance of a detention order may be released for any specified period, either without conditions or upon such conditions specified in the direction as that person accepts, and may, at any time cancel his release. (2) In directing the release of any person under sub-section (1), the Government may require him to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, for the due observance of the conditions specified in the direction. 3) Any person released under sub-section (1) shall surrender himself at the time and place and to the authority, specified in the order directing his release or cancelling his release, as the case may be. (4) If any person fails without sufficient cause to surrender himself in the manner specified in sub-section (3), he shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both. (5) If any person released under sub-section (1) fails to fulfil any of the conditions imposed upon him under the said sub-section or to the bond entered into by him, the bond shall be declared to be forfeited and any person bound thereby shall be liable to pay the penalty thereof." In the case in hand, the order of detention was passed by the District Collector, East Godavari District, in exercise of power under sub-section (2) of Section 3 on 3-2-2000 and the order was served on the detenu on 5-2-2000. The grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu on 7-2-2000 and the order of detention was approved by the State Government on 11-2-2000. A petition for habeas corpus was filed on 16-2-2000. The Advisory Board considered the materials and by its report dated 10-3-2000, opined that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. The order of detention, thereafter was confirmed by the State Government on 18-3-2000 in exercise of power under Section 12 of the Act. The habeas corpus petition, filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court stood dismissed on the conclusion that the detaining authority exercised the power of detention for proper preservation of Forest wealth and for protecting it from illegal activities. The detenu thereafter made an application, seeking temporary release, invoking the power of the Government under Section 15 of the Act on 27-4-2000, which was received by the State Government on 2-5-2000 and rejected by the State Government, after getting reports from the District Collector on 19-6-2000. A fresh writ petition was filed in the High Court, alleging infraction of the constitutional right under Article 22(5) for delay in disposal of the prayer for temporary release. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 19-7-2000 (reported in 2000 Cri LJ 4433) (Andh Pra), was persuaded to accept the said contention and quashed the order of detention and hence the present appeal.;