DUPPALA KRISHNAMURTHY CHALLAPALLI SREENIVASA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DUPPALA KRISHNAMURTHY, CHALLAPALLI SREENIVASA RAO
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)(Judgment of the Court delivered by Gopal Rao Ekbote, J)
1. These are two applications filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing
the respondents to produce the detenus and after examining the
case to release them from the unlawful custody.
(2.)The relevant facts are that the petitioner in W. P, No. 3375 of
1969 is a Journalist at Vijayavada and the petitioner in the other
writ petition (W. P. No. 3576 of 1969) is an agriculturist at Dintis
mereka, hamlet of kodur, Divi Taluk. For the sake of convenience
hereafter the petitioner in W. P. No. 3575 of 1969 wilt he referred to
as the 1st petitioner and the petitioner in W. P. No. 3576 of 1969 as
the 2nd petitioner. The 3rd respondent served ou both of them an
order dated 26-7-1969 directing their detention under Section 3 (1)
(a) (ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, herein after called "the Act."
On 26-7-1569 the 3rd respondent exercising powers under Section 4
of the Act directed the petitioner to he detained in the Central Jail,
Visakhapatnam. In pursuance of these orders, both the petitioner were
arrested on 26-7-1969 and the have been lodged in the Visakhapatnam
Jail. On 28-7-1969, the 3rd respondent served on the petitioners
the grounds on the basis of which they were detained. The
State Government approved the order on 5-8-1969. The case was
referred to the Advisory Board Althoneh the petitioners may they do
not know as to what has happened, the learned Advocate General has
stated that the Advisory Board has conaimed the approval of the
Govt. Their detention orders are challenged on many grounds.
The first contention wss that their detention is rnalafide and is
made on extraneous considerations, The argument was that in July
1969 a new State Ministry was constituted in which Sri Vengala Rao
was included and he was assigned the Home portfolio. He
announced and began to pursue an illegal policy of repression against
the Communists, It is alleged that he instructed the concerned Police
and the detaining authorities in the Krishna District to draw up reports
and to pass detention orders against Communists whom the
Home Minister thought fit to detain. In pursuance of these instru"
ctions 5 reports were drawn up by the Inspector of Police, Specia
Branch, Vjjayawada. Five orders of detention were passed on case
day The State Government also approved these detentions in a
single order mechanically and without considering each case separately.
The Home Minister, against whom the said allegations are made
has chosen not to file any affidavit. In the counter affidavit of the
District Magistrate, Krishna, who is the detaining authority, 3rd
respondent, these allegations have not been met at all.
(3.)In the counter affidavit filed by the Assitant Secretary, G.A.B.
on behalf of the State Government, 1st respondent, these allegations
have not been denied nor there is anv reference to these allegations
After the preliminary argument of the petitioners were over
and in the midst of the arguments of the learned Advocate General
a further counter affidavit was sought to be filed on 10-11-1969 by
the 3rd respondent . The petitioners objected to the receiving of the
further counter affidavit at this stage and characterised it as an after
thought- They complain that the petitioners would have no opportunity
to adduce evidence if the affidavit is received at this stage and
that they will be placed in a disadvantageous position.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.