CHERUKURI MANI W/O NARENDRA CHOWDARI versus THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 6 S.C.R. 750 · Decided: 08-05-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 6 S.C.R. 750 
A 
CHERUKURI MANI W/O NARENDRA CHOWDARI 
v. 
THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ANDH~A 
PRADESH & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1133 of 2014) 
B 
MAY 08, 2014 
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
c 
Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of 
Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas Immoral 
Traffic Offenders and Land Grabpers Act, 1986: 
s.3 - Detention order passed by Government for a period 
of 12 mof1ths - Propriety of - Held: An order of detention 
D should in the first instance be in force for a period of three 
months - Government is, however, conferred with the power 
to extend the period beyond three months - Such extension 
., 
however, cannot be for period exceeding three months - In 
the instant case, the Government erred in directing detention 
E of husband of the appellant for a period of 12 months in one 
stroke ignoring the legislative intention that even the order of 
extension of detention must not exceed three months at an}'-
,one time. 
F 
s. 3 - Detention order - Normally, a person who is 
detained under the provisions of the Act is facing trial which 
in other words amounts to curtailment of his liberties and 
denial of civil rights - In such cases, whether continuous 
detention of such person is necessary or not, is to be 
assessed and reviewed from time to time - Detention, in the 
G instant case, for about seven months at a stretch without 
periodical review was, therefore, not sustainable - Constitution 
of India, 1950 - Article 22. 
Writ jurisdiction: Writ of habeas corpus - Duty of court to 
H 
750 
CHERUKURI MANI v. CHIEF SECY. GOVT. OF 
751 
ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS 
entertain - Technical lapse in framing writ petition - Held: 
A· 
Even though the petition is not properly framed and 
appropriate relief is not sought, the Writ Court is expected to 
go into the issue and decide on merits - Normally, in such 
matters where liberty of a person is at stake, Courts would take 
a liberal approach in the procedural aspects. 
B 
Interpretation of statutes: Deviation from prescribed 
procedure - Held: Where the law prescribes a thing to be 
done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, 
it shall be done in the same manner following the provisions 
C 
of law, without deviating from the prescribed procedure. 
The husband of the appel,lant was alleged to have 
been involved in several cases of theft of Government 
and private properties as well as cases of destruction of 
public properties and his anti social a~tivities were 
D 
harmful to the society and general public and 11 cases 
were registered against him. The Collector issued a 
preventive detention under the Andhra Pradesh 
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, 
Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic 
Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 stating that the. 
husband of the appellant has got all the attributes to be 
called as a 'goonda' as envisaged under Section 2(g) of 
E 
the Act. While passing the detention order, the Collector 
made it clear that the detenu has a right to make a 
representation to the Government under Section 8(1) of 
the Act and the case will be referred to the Advisory 
Board for review and opinion under Section 10 of the Act 
and the detenu can be heard personally by the Advisory 
Board. The Collector also indicated that the Government, 
G 
on the basis of opinion of the Advisory Board, may 
confirm and continue the detention for a period not 
exceeding 12 months from the date of detention. After 
having served with a copy of the .detention order along 
with the grounds of detention, the husband of the 
F 
H 
\ ' 
752 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 6 S.C.R. 
A appellant was taken into custody by Respondent No. 3 
and from 5th October, 2013 he was detained in the Central 
Prison. On the basis of the recommendation of the 
Collector and after obtaining a report from the Advisory 
Board, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.0.Rt. 
B No. 4803, dated 6th November, 2013 and directed 
detention of the detenu for a period of twelve monttis 
from the date on which he was detained i.e. 5th October, 
2013. When the appellant challenged the detention of her . 
husband before the High Court in a habeas corpus Writ 
c Petition, the High Court dismissed the same with a cryptic 
order. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order 
of the High Court . 
. Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1. When habeas corpus writ petition is filed, 
even t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.