0

WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF DETENTION OF THE PETITIONER’S BROTHER ALLOWED AT ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Blog , , ,

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Y Maddilety vs The State Of AP

BENCH – THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

WRIT PETITION No. 712 of 2023

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 12 MAY 2023

INTRODUCTION –

This case is about the writ petition which is challenging the order of the detention of the brother of the petitioner.

The relevant provision followed in this case are as follows –

A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

Section – 3 Power to make order detaining certain persons: –

(1) The Government finds if any boot-legger, dacoit, drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or land-grabber is acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and if it is necessary so to do, can make an order directing that such person be detained.

(2) A District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in subsection (1), exercise the powers granted by the said subsection if the Government is of the opinion that doing so is necessary considering any circumstances existing or likely to exist in any area within the local limits of their jurisdiction. The Government may make this determination by issuing an order in writing.

Section – 2(g) Definitions – “Goonda”

A “goonda” is a person who regularly commits, seeks to commit, or aids in the commission of acts punishable under Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII, or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code, whether alone or as a member of or leader of a gang.

FACTS –

As per the learned counsel of the petitioner, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent (The Collector & District Magistrate, Kurnool District )was confirmed by the 1st respondent (State), the petitioner wants to amend the prayer of the writ petition as Yerukali Polenti Satyam, S/o late Y.Devanna, who is now lodged in Central Prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District to be set at liberty/ordered to be released forthwith by declaring the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent  as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.

The 2nd respondent, while categorizing the detenue as “Goonda” within the definition of Sections 2(g) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 passed the impugned order of detention.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenue was allegedly involved in fourteen crimes, in which, some of the cases registered due to family disputes and they can be dealt with under general laws and he was already acquitted in five cases which were not even considered by the authority. That the order of detention does not have any material to justify the detenue as goonda and that the preventive detention shall not be passed. The offences alleged against the detenue do not involve any disturbance of public order and the same cannot be used for issuance of preventive detention order under Section 3 of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that there was absolutely no illegality nor there exists any procedural infirmity in the impugned action and in the absence of the same, the present writ is not maintainable. Even procedural laws were also not strictly followed by the sponsoring authority, while passing the detention orders, which amounts to procedural irregularity as well not following the provisions contained under on perusal of record by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it reveals that a blanket detention order was passed without specifying a period of detention which is invalid as which is mandated under Section 3(2) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

JUDGMENT – 

In this case the court held that the impugned was made without proper application of mind and there was a serious procedural violation. Hence, Hon’ble court was of the opinion that the detenue will not fall under the category of Section 2(g) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. The order of detention does not show any material to justify the allegation that the detenue is a ‘goonda’ whose activities would be actually prejudicial to public order.

The court held that this Writ Petition was allowed setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent and the detenue namely Yerukali Polenti, was directed to be released forthwith by the respondents.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

0

Petition seeking to declare the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent as null and void allowed at Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Blog ,

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Murikinati Sahitya Reddy vs Sura Rajasekhara Reddy

BENCH – THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

F.C.A. No.27 OF 2022

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 11 MAY 2023

INTRODUCTION –

This case is about the Petitioner seeking to declare the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent as null and void on the ground of impotency of husband.

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act provides for a decree of nullity of marriage, which is voidable, on various grounds. In the case mentioned below the marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotence of the respondent. A party is impotent if his or her mental or physical condition makes consummation of marriage a practical impossibility.

FACTS –

The petitioner and the respondent are the wife and husband, and their marriage was performed #on 14.12.2018 at Anantapur. At the nuptial night, the respondent represented the petitioner that he was strained, and he wants some rest. Thus, the marriage was not consummated at that time.

The petitioner also alleges that the respondent refused to have sexual relations with her when he was staying at his parents’ home up until January 6, 2019. The petitioner then moved in with her parents’ home in Hyderabad after the respondent went for Germany. Later, the petitioner herself took a trip to Germany and found work there. The responder said that his family members were aware of his impotence even before the marriage throughout this time and publicly acknowledged it.

The respondent consulted a doctor in Germany on 14.05.2020 regarding a penetration problem. It was revealed that the respondent suffered from a penetration problem and hypo plastic testicles. The petitioner left the respondent’s company on 05.12.2020 and returned to India, respondent also returned to India on 19.12.2020. The respondent openly admitted his impotence and declared himself unfit for married life. They jointly filed F.C.O.P.No.190 of 2020 before the competent court seeking mutual divorce. However, the petition was dismissed on the ground that both parties had hastily filed for divorce without adhering to the statutory requirement of a one-year separation period. the petitioner filed F.C.O.P. No.11 of 2022 under Section 12(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a declaration that the marriage held on 14.12.2018 be declared null and void.

The Family Court dismissed the F.C.O.P. by observing that the petition for mutual consent was filed on 23.12.2020 and both the petitioners lived together in Germany upto 05.12.2020. Both parties failed to observe the statutory mandate for one-year separate living, and both parties hurriedly filed the divorce petition. They are not entitled to divorce on mutual consent without a statutory requirement of separate living for one year as mandated in section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGEMENT –

The sole testimony of the petitioner, the only material evidence as to the incompetency of the respondent, cannot be discarded when it inspires confidence and there is nothing to show that they were on bad terms. The evidence of the petitioner that the marriage was not consummated due to the husband’s impotence was not refuted, and the impotence of the respondent was admitted in writing by him.

The evidence of PW.1(the impotence of the respondent was admitted in writing by him) should have been accepted by the Family Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. The court was of the view that the petitioner’s case, based on section 12(1)(a), as amended by the 1976 Act, has been clearly established.

The appeal is allowed by granting a decree for divorce in favour of the appellant and against the respondent-husband. The Judgment passed in F.C.O.P. No.11 of 2022, dated 11.04.2022, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Court, Anantapur, is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs throughout.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

0

“THE BATTLE FOR JEE ADVANCED: A PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE EXAM ACCEPTANCE”

Blog , , , , ,

INTRODUCTION

The High Court of Bombay passed a judgement on 24 May 2023. In the case of ATHARVA MILIND DESAI Vs JOINT ADMISSION BOARD IIT THR. CHAIRPERSON IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6239 OF 2023 which was passed by a division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY AHUJA and HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE the court had to decide on a petition filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner sought directions to the sole respondent to accept their examination form and fees for the JEE Advance examination. The petitioner claimed that due to network connectivity glitches, they were unable to fill the examination form within the stipulated time frame. The court carefully examined the arguments presented by both parties and the relevant documents before reaching a decision. This blog post aims to analyse the judgment and its implications.

FACTS

The petitioner had qualified the HSC examination in 2022 and was preparing to appear for the JEE Advance examination. However, they encountered network connectivity issues that prevented them from submitting the examination form within the prescribed time frame. The petitioner argued that since they were eligible to appear for the exam based on their previous qualification, they should be allowed to participate, considering their strong percentile score. They also mentioned residing in a rural area with frequent internet and power outages, which further hindered their registration process.

The respondent, the organizing institute for the JEE Advanced Examination, contended that the examination process was strictly governed by an information brochure. According to the brochure, candidates had to register online within a specified time frame. The respondent presented evidence that the petitioner did not log in during the designated period but only successfully logged in on the day after the registration deadline. The respondent argued that making an exception for the petitioner would set a bad precedent and undermine the sanctity of timelines and the merit selection process.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The court carefully considered the arguments put forth by both parties and examined the relevant documents, including the petitioner’s login details and the information brochure. It acknowledged the significance of technical institutes like IITs and NITs and the importance of discipline in the education system. The court noted that the registration period provided by the respondent was eight full days, which should have been sufficient for all candidates to complete their registration. It also observed that the petitioner successfully logged in on the day after the deadline, without any explanation for the delay.

The court emphasized that the petitioner had not utilized the grievance redressal mechanism outlined in the information brochure during the registration period. Furthermore, the petitioner’s failure to contact the respondent’s designated channels for grievance or query resolution indicated a lack of diligence on their part. Considering these factors, the court concluded that the rules governing the JEE Advanced Examination were binding on all participants, including the petitioner.

LEGAL PRECEDENTS:

The court referenced the Supreme Court case of Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159, which highlighted the principle that a court cannot direct an authority to violate its own rules and regulations. The court also mentioned the Delhi High Court case of Pallavi Sharma v. College of Vocational Studies 2015 SCC Online Del 10249, which followed the aforementioned principle.

JUDGMENT

After careful deliberation, the court dismissed the petition, stating that it was not a fit case to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The court held that maintaining discipline and adhering to the rules and regulations were crucial in the interest of lakhs of aspiring meritorious students across the country. It stressed that its direction should not result in authorities violating their own rules.

CONCLUSION

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to rules and regulations in educational processes such as examination registrations. The court’s decision underscores the need for candidates to exercise due diligence and utilize the available mechanisms for grievance resolution within the specified time frames. While sympathizing with the petitioner’s circumstances, the court prioritized the larger interest of maintaining discipline and fairness in the selection process for technical institutes. This judgment sets a precedent for upholding the sanctity of timelines and rules in similar cases, ensuring a fair and transparent examination system.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW

click here to view judgement

 

 

 

0

WRIT PETITION BY PETITIONER TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER OF DETENTION OF HER HUSBAND

Blog ,

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

R Suchithra vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

BENCH – THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

WRIT PETITION No. 4202 of 2023

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 9 MAY 2023

INTRODUCTION –

This case is about the writ petition which is challenging the order of the detention of the husband of the petitioner.

The relevant provision followed in this case are as follows –

A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

Section – 3 Power to make order detaining certain persons: –

(1) The Government finds if any boot-legger, dacoit, drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or land-grabber is acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and if it is necessary so to do, can make an order directing that such person be detained.

(2) A District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in subsection (1), exercise the powers granted by the said subsection if the Government is of the opinion that doing so is necessary considering any circumstances existing or likely to exist in any area within the local limits of their jurisdiction. The Government may make this determination by issuing an order in writing.

FACTS –

The Collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor District, while categorizing the detenue as a “Bootlegger” passed the impugned order of detention.

The detenue was put within the definition of Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenue is in judicial custody at the time of passing of detention order. the representation submitted by the petitioner for recall of detention order was rejected by the 2nd respondent (Collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor District).

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the acts of the detenue is are prejudicial to the public order who is a bootlegger who is selling distilled liquor, which is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and that having regard to the gravity of the offences, the orders impugned in the writ petition do not warrant any interference of this Court and the present writ petition is not maintainable.

The court observed that as ordinary criminal law is adequate to deal with the offences, preventive detention without subjecting an individual to the procedure of free and fair trial would infringe the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Chapter III of Constitution of India. These factors are missing in the impugned order.

The detention order was passed when the detenue was in judicial custody basing on five cases that were registered against him and he was granted bail in all those cases. The learned counsel for the respondents did not file a counter to deny the case of petitioner. The detaining authority as well sponsoring authority has not taken into consideration the fact that the detenue was on bail in all those cases and no opinion has been expressed as to whether the preventive detention of detenue was essential or not, and no such discussion was made in the order.

JUDGEMENT –

The Court held that the orders impugned were made without proper application of mind and there is a serious procedural violation. The order of detention does not show any material to justify that the detenue is a ‘Bootlegger’ whose activities would be actually prejudicial to public order.

This Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2nd Respondent (Collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor District) dated 14.10.2022. The detenue namely Francis Babu @ Francis @ Frances, is directed to be released forthwith by the respondents if the detenue is not required in any other cases.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

0

WRIT PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF DETENTION OF HER HUSBAND ALLOWED AT ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Blog , ,

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Kothapalli Pavani vs The State Of AP

BENCH – THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

WRIT PETITION No.1378 of 2023

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 9 MAY 2023

INTRODUCTION –

This case is about the writ petition which is challenging the order of the detention of the husband of the petitioner.

The relevant provision followed in this case are as follows –

A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

Section – 3 Power to make order detaining certain persons: –

(1) The Government finds if any boot-legger, dacoit, drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or land-grabber is acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and if it is necessary so to do, can make an order directing that such person be detained.

(2) A District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in subsection (1), exercise the powers granted by the said subsection if the Government is of the opinion that doing so is necessary considering any circumstances existing or likely to exist in any area within the local limits of their jurisdiction. The Government may make this determination by issuing an order in writing.

Article 226 in The Constitution of India 1949

Power of High Courts to issue certain writs –

Any High Court may issue directions, orders, or writs, including those in the nature of writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto, and certiorari, or any of them, to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories, regardless of what Article 32 says. These writs may be used to enforce any of the rights granted by Part III and for other purposes.

 Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995

Section 7-B. Prohibition of Boot Legging Activities:

It is forbidden to produce, transport, set, purchase, import, export, or store any alcoholic beverages, as well as to supply or transport any raw materials to produce alcoholic beverages illegally or covertly, in violation of the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

Section 8-B. Penalty for sale, export, import and transport of alcoholic liquor manufactured illegally and clandestinely:

Whoever violates section 7-B of this Act by engaging in the sale, export, import, or transportation of illegally distilled alcoholic beverages is subject to imprisonment for a term that must not be less than one year but may not exceed eight years, as well as fines that must not be less than Rs. 2 lakhs for a first offence and Rs. 5 lakhs for a second, upon conviction.

FACTS –

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds for detention are not at all grievous offences, that he was allegedly involved in seven crimes under Sections 34(A), 34(e) and 7(B) r/w.8(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 and they can be dealt under general laws. It is also stated that the detenue was already granted bail in five crimes, out of seven crimes.

The learned counsel for the respondent supports the order of the District Magistrate as the detenue is a habitual offender and argues that his acts are prejudicial to the public order, that he is a bootlegger who is selling adulterated liquor. He states that the order impugned in the writ petition do not warrant any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The court observed that as ordinary criminal law is adequate to deal with the offences, preventive detention without subjecting an individual to the procedure of free and fair trial would infringe the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Chapter III of Constitution of India.

As per the contention of the petitioner, the detenue was granted bail in five crimes, out of seven crimes, but the said fact is not considered by the detaining authority. The detaining authority as well sponsoring authority has not taken into consideration the said fact and no opinion has been expressed as to whether the preventive detention of detenue was essential or not in the order. It was not clear how the authority came to the conclusion that the ordinary law was not sufficient to stop the alleged crimes.

JUDGEMENT –

The Court held that the orders impugned were made without proper application of mind and there is a serious procedural violation. The order of detention does not show any material to justify that the detenue is a ‘Bootlegger’ whose activities would be actually prejudicial to public order. The detenue will not fall under the category of Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the act.

This Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent (The Collector and District Magistrate, YSR district). The detenue namely Kothapalli Raghurami Reddy, was directed to be released forthwith by the respondents if the detenue is not required in any other cases.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

1 … 23 24 25 26 27