THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS. versus SMT. SHAIK HASMATH BEEBI

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 142 · Decided: 23-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS. 
v. 
SMT. SHAIK HASMATH BEEBI 
APRIL 23, 2001 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, 
Dacoits, Drug offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land 
Grabbers Act, 1986: Sections 3 & 15. 
Detenu-Application for temporary release-Delay in disposal of-
Ejfect of 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 22(5) 
D 
Preventive Detention-Detention order-Detenu-Application for 
temporary release-Delay in disposal of -Held not violative of Article 22 
(5). 
An order of detention 11assed under section 3 of the Andhra pradesh 
E prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Decoits, Drug om~~ders, 
Goondas, Iinmoral Traffic offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 was 
unsuccessfully challenged before the Andhra pradesh High court. On 
27.4.2000, the detenu made an application seeking temporary release under 
section 15 of the Act. The said application was received by the state 
Government on 2.5.2000 and rejected by it, after getting reports from the 
F District collector, on 19.6.2000. Another writ petition was filed in the High 
com1 contending that delay in disposal of the application for temporary release 
tantamounts to violation of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. The High court 
quashed the order of detention on the' ground that as the representation of 
the detenu was not disposed of within a reasonable period the constitutional 
right guaranteed to the detenu under Article 22 (5) was infringed. 
G 
Allowing, the Court appeal 
HELD : 1. The High Court committed serious error in setting aside the 
order of detention, merely because there had been delay in disposing of the 
H application for temporary release, filed by the detenu under section 15 of the 
142 
DISTT. COLLECTOR v. SHAIK HASMATH BEEB! 
143 
Act [148-F] 
2. The object of preventive detention is to prevent the detenu from doing 
something or to prevent an individual from achieving the particular object. 
A 
The satisfaction of the concerned authority is a subjective satisfaction. The 
object of the framers of the Constitution in giving a Constitutional status to 
1>reventive detention was to prevent anti-social and subversive elements from B 
imperilling the welfare of the republic. Having recognised the necessity of 
laws for preventive detention, the Constitution also has provided some 
safeguards to mitigate the hardships and clause (5) of A11icle 22 is one such 
safeguard, available to a detenu, who has been detained under a preventive 
law. [147-B-D) 
c 
3. Article 22(5) gives the detenu the right to make a representation 
against an order of detention and such right must be afforded as expeditiously 
as possible. Article 22(5) in itself does not say, to whom a representation 
could be made or who will consider the representation but a representation 
filed by a detenu is required to be con!.idered and disposed of by the Government 
as soon as it is received. The power under section 15 is the power of the D 
Government to release a detenu for any specified period with !.11ch conditions 
to be specified in the order of release and such a prayer by no stretch of 
imagination can be held to be representation against the order of detention 
within the meaning of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. That being the 
position, que!.1ion of infraction of Article 22(5) does not arise if the prayer of E 
the detenu for being temporarily released, is not disposed of immediately and 
there is some delay in the dis1rnsal of the said prayer. Of course such a 
prayer for being temporarily released, should be disposed of within a 
reasonable time but delay on the part of the authority in considering the 
prayer for temporary release under section 15 of the Act cannot be held to be 
an infraction of the constitutional right guaranteed to a detenu under Article F 
22(5). [147-F-G; 147-C-F] 
4. The period of detention being over since 5th February, 2001, the 
detenu will not be required to be detained again under the self-same detention 
order. (148-G] 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
537 of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.2000 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in W.P. No. 9512 of2000. 
Guntur Prabhakar for the Appellants. 
H 
144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
M.N. Rao and D. Mahesh Babu for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the court was delivered by 
PATTANAIK, J. Leave Granted. 
B 
This· appeal by special
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.