1

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

Date of reserved for orders :19.09.2026

Date of pronouncement : 24.09.2026

Date of uploading : 24.09.2026

APHC010199012026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE 24

th

DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 10194 OF 2026

Between:

1. Smt.Talasila Santhi, W/o Venkata Narasimha Rao Age 45 years Occ

Housewife R/o D.NO.5 -186, Flat No.302, Sreevanam Residence

Prasadampadu, Vijayawada, NTR Dist-521108

...Petitioner

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Chief Secretary A.P.Secretariat,

Velagapudi At Amaravati, Guntur Dist.522238

2. The Collector and District Magistrate, Nellore Town at S.P.S Nellore Dist.-

524001

3. The Superintendent of Police, Nellore town at S.P.S Nellore Dist.-52001

4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa Dist. 516002

...Respondents

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

2

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

pleased tomay be pleased to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of Habeas

Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the 4th respondent

to produce Talasila Venkata Narasimha Rao, who is now detained in Central

Prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa Dist., before this Honble Court and he may be

ordered to be released forthwith by declaring his detention vide order

Rc.C1(Magl)/06/2025 dt 19-01-2026 passed by the 2nd respondent and

confirmation order issued by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.546 dt 11-03-

2026 confirming the detention order for a period of 12 months (from 20-1-2026)

as illegal and unconstitutional, and subsequently, set-aside the rejection

endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent vide Rc.C1(Magl)/06/2026

dt.07.07.2026 and the consequential confirmation order issued by the 1st

respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.1384 dt.14.07.2026 dt. 01.03.2026 and rejecting the

petitioner's representation consequently, direct the respondents to release the

detenue forthwith, and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may

deem fit and proper in the interests of justice. Main prayer was amended as per

c.o.dt.19.08.2026 Vide I.A.No.2 of 2026 in W.P.No.10194 of 2026.

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

may suspend the GO Rt No.546 dt 11-03-2026 issued by the 1st respondent

and direct the respondents to release the detenue namely Talasila Venkata

Narasimha Rao pending disposal of the main WP in the interest of justice

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

may be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the prayer in

W.P.No.10194/2026 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court

may be deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.

ORIGINAL PRAYER (A) Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble court may be

3

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

pleased to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of Habeas Corpus under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the 4 th respondent to produce

Talasila Venkata Narasimha Rao, who is now detained in Central Prison,

Kadapa, YSR Kadapa Dist., before this Hon'ble Court and he may be ordered

to be released forthwith by declaring his detention vide order

Rc.C1(MagI)/06/2025 dt:19-01-2026 passed by the 2nd respondent and

confirmation order issued by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.546 dt:11-03-

2026 confirming the detention order for a period of 12 months (from 20-1-2026)

as illegal and unconstitutional and pass any other order this Hon'ble Court may

deem fit in the interest of Justice. AMENDMENT SEEKING AS UNDER Hence,

it is prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction

preferably writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

directing the 4th respondent to produce Talasila Venkata Narasimha Rao, who

is now detained in Central Prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa Dist., before this

Hon'ble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith by declaring his

detention vide order Rc.C1(MagI)/06/2025 dt:19-01-2026 passed by the 2nd

respondent and confirmation order issued by the 1st respondent vide

G.O.Rt.No.546 dt:11-03-2026 confirming the detention order for a period of 12

months (from 20-1-2026) as illegal and unconstitutional, and subsequently, set-

aside the rejection endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent vide

Rc.C1(MagI)/06/2026 dt.07.07.2026 and the consequential confirmation order

issued by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.1384 dt.14.07.2026 rejecting the

petitioner's representation dt. 01.03.2026; and consequently, direct the

respondents to release the detenue forthwith, and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner: M M M SRINIVASA RAO

Counsel for the Respondents: ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

The Court made the following order:

4

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 10194 OF 2026

ORDER: :-(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

Heard Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing

Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Akula

Venkata Sai Jagadeesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the

office of the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the

respondents.

2. The petitioner, who is wife of the detenu, filed the writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of preventive

detention and seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for his release.

3. The 2

nd

respondent- Collector & District Magistrate, Nellore Town at

S.P.S.Nellore District, passed an order of preventive detention against the

detenu, vide proceedings in Rc.C1/(Magl)/06/2025, dated 19.01.2026, under

Section 3(1) & (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Bootleggers, Dacoits,

Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers

Act,1986 (for short, "the Act,1986").

4. After the receipt of a report from the Advisory Board dated

17.02.2026, the detention order was confirmed by the State vide

G.O.Rt.No.546, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 11.03.2026,

5

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

for a period of twelve months from the date of detention i.e., from 20.01.2026.

The detention order was passed based on five (05) criminal cases pending

against the detenu. List of those cases is as under : -

Sl.

No

Cr.No., Date &

Police Station

Police stations

1. Cr.No.52 of 2024,

Dated 10.06.2024

U/s.143, 323, 365, 506 r/w 149 IPC,

Jaladanki P.S.,

2. Cr. No. 45 of 2025

Dated 18.05.2025

U/s.329(3), 234(4), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of

BNS

Jaladanki P.S.,

3. Cr. No. 73 of 2025

Dated 25.07.2025

U/s 329(3), 234(5), 303(2), 351 (2)

r/w 3(5) of BNS

Jaladanki P.S.,

4. Cr. No. 76 of 2025

Dated 29.07.2025

U/s 75(1), 115(2), 351(2) r/w 3(5)

BNS & Sec.3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(i),

3(1)(z), 3(2)(va) SCs & STs (POA)

Act.

Jaladanki P.S.,

5. Cr. No. 116 of 2025

Dated 26.11.2025

U/s 103(1), 61(2) r/w 3(5) BNS

Jaladanki P.S.,

5. In view of the subsequent developments, i.e., the rejection of the

detenu’s representation by the State Government vide G.O.Rt.No.1384 General

Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 14.07.2026, the prayer in the writ

petition was amended, so as to challenge that order as well, pursuant to the

order dated 19.08.2026 passed by this Court in I.A.No.2 of 2026.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the order of

preventive detention, submits that, in Ground No.5, i.e., in Crime No.116 of 2025

of Jaladanki Police Station, the detenu was granted bail on 06.02.2026, which

6

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

fact was not considered in the order of confirmation, though it was required to be

considered, as the bail was granted subsequent to the passing of the preventive

detention order. He further submits that, in Ground No.5, the detaining authority

was required to consider the applicability of the triple test, since the detenu was

in judicial custody at the time of passing of the preventive detention order.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner

submitted a representation dated 01.03.2026, but the same was not considered

while passing the order of confirmation on 11.03.2026. On the said

representation, remarks were submitted by the District Collector to the State

Government on 07.07.2026, and the order rejecting the representation was

passed on 14.07.2026. In the rejection order, the fact that bail had been granted

on 06.02.2026 was not taken into consideration. Thereafter, pursuant to the

order dated 20.07.2026 passed in the present writ petition, another

representation dated 28.07.2026 was submitted, but the same has also been

rejected, vide G.O.Rt.No.1796 General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated

15.09.2026. In the rejection order dated 15.09.2026, there is mention of the bail

order, dated 06.02.2026. There is also an unexplained delay in considering the

representation and, there is also no consideration of the bail conditions.

Consequently, the continued detention of the detenu would become illegal and

he would be entitled for release.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that, insofar as

Ground No.5 is concerned, the detaining authority has taken into consideration

7

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

the fact that, although the detenu was in judicial custody, there was a possibility

of his being released on bail and, upon such release, of his indulging in similar

criminal activities, thereby causing prejudice to public order. Such satisfaction

has been clearly recorded in the preventive detention order, which was

thereafter confirmed by the State Government.

9. With regard to decision on the representation, learned Government

Pleader submits that the representation was not considered while passing the

order of confirmation, though it had been submitted prior to the passing of the

confirmation order. The representation was however, rejected by order dated

14.07.2026. He submits that the delay occurred on account of the detaining

authority having submitted its remarks belatedly on 07.07.2026. He further

submits that another representation of the detenu was rejected on 15.09.2026

taking into account the bail order dated 06.02.2026.

10. We have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned

counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

11. The challenge to the order of preventive detention is primarily on

two grounds, namely, that the subsequent grant of bail to the detenu in Crime

No.116 of 2025 of Jaladanki Police Station on 06.02.2026 was not taken into

consideration by the State while confirming the order of preventive detention and

secondly that in rejecting the representation, there is an unexplained delay of

more than four (04) months.

8

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

12. Insofar the first submission, on as Ground No.5 is concerned, it is

not in dispute that, at the time of passing of the order of preventive detention,

the detenu was in judicial custody in Crime No.116 of 2025 of Jaladanki Police

Station. The detaining authority has taken note of the said fact and recorded its

satisfaction that there was a possibility of the detenu being released on bail and,

upon such release, of his indulging in similar criminal activities prejudicial to the

maintenance of public order. Therefore, the contention that the factum of the

detenu being in judicial custody was not taken into consideration cannot be

accepted.

13. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance in

Union of India and Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) Govt. of India,

Ministry of Finance v. Dimple Happy Dhakad

1, wherein the Hon’ble

Apex Court held at paragraph No.33 reads as under :

“33. It is well settled that the order of detention can be validly

passed against a person in custody and for that purpose, it is

necessary that the grounds of detention must show t hat the

detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was

already in custody. The detaining authority must be further

satisfied that the detenu is likely to be released from custody and

the nature of activities of the detenu indicate that if he is released,

he is likely to indulge in such prejudicial activities and therefore, it

is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in

such activities.”

1

2019 (20) SCC 609

9

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

14. We find force in the submission of the learned Assistant

Government Pleader that, insofar as Ground No.5 is concerned, at the time of

passing of the detention order, the detenu was in judicial custody and the

detaining authority has taken into consideration the said aspect, which is clearly

reflected in the order of preventive detention. The detaining authority has also

recorded its satisfaction that, although the detenu was in judicial custody, there

was a possibility of his being released on bail and, in the event of such release,

indulging in such criminal activities as would cause prejudice to the maintenance

of public order. Consequently, insofar as Ground No.5 is concerned, we do not

find any illegality in the order of preventive detention, as passed by the detaining

authority as on the date of the order.

15. However, when the bail was granted after the detention order, the

confirming authority must have taken into consideration that grant of bail, which

was not considered. There is no consideration of the detenu’s representation

dated 01.03.2026, while confirming the preventive detention order, which

required an independent consideration, at that stage as well, also taking into

account the bail order dated 06.02.2026 with its conditions for the decision to

confirm or not to confirm the order of preventive detention.

16. The detenu’s representation dated 01.03.2026 is not in dispute. The

representation was submitted by the detenu prior to the order of confirmation

dated 11.03.2026. The representation was ultimately rejected on 14.07.2026 by

10

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

the State. The record discloses on which there is no dispute that the remarks of

the District Collector on the representation were submitted to the State

Government only on 07.07.2026 i.e., after almost four (04) months of the

representation and that too without considering the bail order. The subsequent

representation dated 28.07.2026 has also been rejected on 15.09.2026 which is

also after almost 45 days. In this order of rejection, the bail order has been

mentioned, but no due consideration of the bail conditions is reflected. The

Principal Secretary to State, has observed that the detenu previously did not

submit the bail order for consideration by the detaining authority or the

confirming authority. Such an observation or the view taken cannot be

sustained. In the preventive detention matters, like the present one, the burden

is on the detaining authority/confirming order to justify its order on consideration

of the material. It is a matter of deprivation of personal liberty of a person, which

is the most valuable fundamental right guaranteed by the Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. It is not for the detenu, but for the sponsoring authority to

place complete relevant material before the detaining authority and the

confirming authority. No fault could be found with the detenu or the person

making the representation on his behalf. Even after placing the copy of the bail

order, while rejecting the representation dated 28.07.2026, no independent

consideration has been made.

11

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

17. In Rama Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of

Police

2, it was held that where the delay in considering the representation is

unreasonably long and the explanation offered by the authority is unsatisfactory,

such delay would vitiate the continued detention.

18. In K.M.Abdulla Kunhi and B.L.Abdul Kha der v. Union of

India and others

3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Article 22(5) casts a

constitutional obligation upon the concerned authority to consider and dispose of

the representation as expeditiously as possible and that any unexplained delay

in disposal of the representation would render the continued detention

impermissible and illegal.

19. In K.M.Abdulla Kunhi (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that

the representation relates to the liberty of the individual, the highly cherished

right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Clause (5) of Article 22

therefore casts a legal obligation on the Government to consider the

representation as early as possible. It is a constitutional mandate, commanding

the concerned authority to whom the detenu submits his representation to

consider the representation and dispose of the same as expeditiously as

possible. The words 'as soon as may be" occurring in clause (5) of Article 22

reflects the concern of the framers that the representation should be

2

(1989) 3 SCC 173

3

(1991) 1 SCC 476

12

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency without an

avoidable delay.

20. Para No.12 of K.M.Abdulla Kunhi (supra) reads as under:

"The representation relates to the liberty of the individual,

the highly cherished right enshrined in Article 21 of our

Constitution. Clause (5) of Article 22 therefore, casts a legal

obligation on the government to consider

the representation as early as possible. It is a

constitutional mandate commanding the concerned

authority to whom the detenu submits his representation to

consider the representation and dispose of the same as

expeditiously as possible. The words "as soon as may be"

occurring in clause (5) of Article 22 reflects the concern of

the Framers that the representation should be

expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of

urgency without an avoidable delay. However, there can

be no hard and fast rule in this regard. It depends upon

the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no

period prescribed either under the Constitution or under

the concerned detention law, withi n which the

representation should be dealt with. The requirement

however, is that there should not be supine indifference,

slackness or callous attitude in considering the

representation. Any unexplained delay in the disposal

of representation would be a b reach of the

constitutional imperative and it would render the

continued detention impermissible and illegal. This

has been emphasised and re-emphasised by a series of

decisions of this Court. (See: Jayanarayan Sukul v. State

of W.M. [(1970) 1 SCC 219]; Frances Coralie Mullin v. W.C.

Khambra [(1980) 2 SCC 275: 1980 SCC (Cri) 419]; Rama

Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police

[(1989) 3 SCC 173 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 520] and Aslam Ahmed

Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India [(1989) 3 SCC 277 :

1989

SCC (Cri) 554] .)"

21. In K.M.Abdulla Kunhi (supra), the Constitution Bench of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that if the detenu does not exercise his right

13

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

to make representation against the order of detention but presents the

representation to the Government after the Government has confirmed the order

of detention, the Government still has to consider such representation and

release the detenu if the detention is not within the power conferred under the

statute. It was held that so long as the representation is independently

considered by the Government and if there is no delay in considering the

representation, the fact that it is considered after the confirmation of the

detention makes little difference on the validity of the detention or confirmation of

the detention. Paragraph Nos.19 and 20 of K.M.Abdulla Kunhi (supra) read

as under:

"19. There is no constitutional mandate under cl. (5) of

Article 22, much less any statutory requirement to

consider the representation before confirming the order of

detention. As long as the Government without delay

considers the representation with an unbiased mind

there is no basis for concluding that the absence of

independent consideration is the obvious result if the

representation is not considered before the confirmation

of detention. Indeed, there is no justification for imposing

this restriction on the power of the Government. As

observed earlier, the Government's consideration of the

representation is for a different purpose, namely to find

out whether the detention is in conformity with the power

under the statute. This has been explained in Haradhan

Saha case, where Ray, C.J., speaking for the

Constitution Bench observed that the consideration

of the representation by the Government is only to

ascertain whether the detention order is in conformity

with the power under the law. There need not be a

speaking order in disposing such representation. There is

also no failure of justice by the order not being a

Speaking order. All that is necessary is that there should

be real and proper consideration by the Government.

14

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

20. It is necessary to mention that with regard to liberty

of citizens the court stands gua rd over the facts

and requirements of law, but court cannot draw

presumption against any authority without

material. It may be borne in mind that the

confirmation of detention does not preclude the

government from revoking the order of detention

upon considering the representation. Secondly, there

may be cases where the government has to consider the

representation only after confirmation of detention.

Clause (5) of Article 22 suggests that the representation

could be received even after confirmation of the order of

detention. The words 'shall afford him the earliest

opportunity of making a representation against the order

in clause (5) of Article 22 suggest that the obligation of

the government is to offer the detenu an opportunity of

making a representation against the order, before it is

confirmed according to the procedure laid down under

Section 8 of the Act. But if the detenu does not exercise

his right to make representation at that stage, but

presents it to the government after the government has

confirmed the order of detention, the government still has

to consider such representation and release the detenu if

the detention is not within the power conferred under the

statute. The confirmation of the order of detention

is not conclusive as against the detenu. It can be

revoked suo motu under Section 11 or upon a

representation of the detenu. It seems to us therefore,

that so long as the representation is independently

considered by the government and if there is no delay in

considering the representation, the fact that it is

considered after the confirmation of detention makes little

difference on the validity of the detention or confirmation

of the detention. The confirmation cannot be invalidated

solely on the ground that the representation is considered

subsequent to confirmation of the detention. Nor it could

be presumed that such consideration is not an

independent consideration. With all respect, we are not

inclined to subscribe to the views expressed in V.J. Jain

[(1979) 4 SCC 401 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 4], Om Prakash Bahl [

W.P. No. 845 of 1979, decided on October 15, 1979

(Unreported)] and Khairul Haque cases [ W.P. No. 246 of

1969, decided on September 10, 1969 (Unreported)] .

They cannot be considered to be good law and hence

stand overruled.

15

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

22. In Rashid Kapadia v. Medha Gadgil

4

1 the Hon’ble Apex

Court held that any unreasonable and unexplainable delay in considering the

representation is held to be fatal to the continued detention of the detenu. In

Rashid Kapadia (supra) remarks of the sponsoring authority was submitted

with a delay of 15 days. Paragraph Nos.12 to 14 in Rashid Kapadia (supra)

reads as under :

“12. It can be seen from the above extracted portion that the first

respondent called for the parawise remarks of the sponsoring authority

(Customs Department) on 9-8-2011. However, the sponsoring authority

responded to the inquiry of the first respondent on 26-8-2011 with a delay of

fifteen days. The reasons for such delay have not been explained by the

sponsoring authority, represented by the third respondent herein. There is

nothing on the record placed before us, which explains the abovementioned

delay on the part of the third respondent's Department.

13. It is well settled that the right of a person, who is preventively detained,

to make a representation and have it considered by the authority concerned

as expeditiously as possible, is a constitutional right under Article 22(5). Any

unreasonable and unexplainable delay in considering the representation is

held to be fatal to the continued detention of the detenu. The proposition is

too well settled in a long line of decisions of this Court. We do not think it

necessary to examine the authorities on this aspect, except to take note of a

couple of judgments where the principle is discussed in detail. They are:

Mohinuddin v. District Magistrate, Beed [(1987) 4 SCC 58 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 674]

and Harshala Santosh Patil v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 12 SCC 211 :

(2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 680] .

14. Therefore, we have no option, but to come to the conclusion that the

detention order cannot be sustained on the abovementioned ground alone and

it is required to be, accordingly, set aside.”

4

(2012) 11 SCC 745

16

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

23. Recently, in Cheemparthi Shaheen v. the State of Andhra

Pradesh (W.P.No.34357 of 2025 dated 01.07.2026), this Court on

consideration of various pronouncements on the subject of compliance in the

cases of Rajammal v. State or Tamil nadu and another

5, Pabitra

N.Rana v. Union of India and others

6, Rashid Kanadia v. Medha

Gadgil and others

7, Abdul Nasar Adam Ismail v. State of

Maharashtra

8, and Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India and

others

9, held in paragraphs 23 and 24 as under :

“23. It is thus well settled in law that the detenu has a

fundamental right to make the representation against his

detention order and has a right for its consideration as

expeditiously as possible with a sense of urgency without an

avoidable delay. Though there is no hard and fast rule with

respect to the time and delay but it depends upon the facts

and circumstances of each case. In case of delayed disposal of

representation the delay must be explained and such

explanation must stand the test of reasonableness to the

satisfaction of the Court.

24. The representation, even if not filed against the

order of detention at the initial stage but is filed after the order

of detention has been confirmed by the State still the detenu

will have a right to make the representation which survives

even after the confirmation of the detention order. The same

principle for expeditious disposal of the representation without

delay continues to be the fundamental right of the detenu in

terms of the law as laid down in the aforesaid judgments in

view of Articles 21 and 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. So

delay in disposal of the representation even after the order of

detention has been confirmed by the State must be justified by

giving proper and sufficient explanation. If there is no

sufficient explanation or a Court finds delay unreasonable and

5

(1999) 1 SCC 417

6

(1980) 2 SCC 338

7

(2012) 11 SCC 745

8

(2013) 4 SCC 435

9

(1980) 4 SCC 531

17

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

is not satisfied on the grounds for delay, the continued

detention would become illegal. The order of detention on such

ground would not be illegal or void but pursuant to that order

of detention, the detenu cannot be detained any further. Any

unexplained delay in the disposal of representation would be

a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render

the continued detention impermissible and illegal.”

24. In the present case, no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for

the considerable delay between the submission of the representation on

01.03.2026 and the submission of remarks by the District Collector only on

07.07.2026, followed by the rejection of the representation on 14.07.2026. The

explanation that the delay occurred on account of the belated submission of

remarks does not, by itself, satisfactorily explain the delay, particularly when the

representation concerns the personal liberty of the detenu and is required to be

dealt with as soon as possible. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation for

the delay, the continued detention of the detenu cannot be sustained.

25. There is delay in considering the petitioner's representation, and

there is no explanation for the delay, the continued preventive detention of the

detenu becomes illegal, and he is entitled to be released, if he is not in detention

in any other pending criminal case.

26. The writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order of

preventive detention by the 2

nd

respondent-Collector & District Magistrate,

Nellore Town at S.P.S.Nellore District, passed against the detenu, vide

proceedings in Rc.C1/(Magl)/06/2025, dated 19.01.2026, the order of

18

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

confirmation by the State vide G.O.Rt.No.546, General Administration (SC-I)

Department, dated 11.03.2026, so also the order of rejection of representation

by the State vide G.O.Rt.No.1384, General Administration (SC-I) Department,

dated 14.07.2026 and rejection order of another representation dated

28.07.2026, vide G.O.Rt.No.1796, General Administration (SC-I) Department,

dated 15.09.2026. The detenu by name Sri Talasila Venkata Narasimha Rao,

s/o Sambashiva Rao, age 52 yrs, N/o Nagayalanka village and Mandal, Krishna

District, now residing at Gattupalli, Chinthalapelm village, Jaladanki Mandal,

SPS Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh, shall be released/set free forthwith, if not

detained in any other pending criminal case.

No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also

stand closed.

____________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

____________________

SUNITHA GANDHAM , J

Date : 24.09.2026

Note :- L.R. Copy to be marked.

B/o

RPD.

Whether the order is :

Speaking

✔

Yes/ No

Reasoned

✔

Yes/ No

Reportable

✔

Yes/ No

Non-Reportable

Yes/ No

19

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

AND

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM

(ALLOWED)

WRIT PETITION NO: 10194 of 2026

Date: 24.09.2026

Note :- L.R. Copy to be marked.

B/o

RPD.

20

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

* THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM

+ WRIT PETITION NO: 10194 OF 2026

% 24.09.2026

# Smt.Talasila Santhi.

……Petitioner

And:

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Rep. by its Chief Secretary and others

….Respondents.

!Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao

^Counsel for the respondents : Sri Akula Venkata Sai Jagadeesh,

learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of learned AG

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. 2019 (20) SCC 609

2. (1989) 3 SCC 173

3. (1991) 1 SCC 476

4. (2012) 11 SCC 745

5. (1999) 1 SCC 417

6. (1980) 2 SCC 338

7. (2012) 11 SCC 745

8. (2013) 4 SCC 435

9. (1980) 4 SCC 531

21

(RNT,J & SUN,J

W.P. NO.10194 OF 2026)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

* * * *

WRIT PETITION NO: 10194 OF 2026

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 24.09.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

&

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals

Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair

copy of the Judgment?

Yes/No

____________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI,J

____________________

SUNITHA GANDHAM , J