The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a delay in deciding a detenu’s representation does not vitiate a preventive detention order if the authorities satisfactorily explain it. A Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar accepted census and Special Intensive Revision (SIR) duties as an explanation for a 52-day delay. It dismissed a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of an alleged red sanders smuggler.
Background
The Collector and District Magistrate, Tirupati District, passed the detention order against B. Rajashekar on February 12, 2026. The order was passed under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. After the Advisory Board’s report, the State confirmed the detention on March 31, 2026, for twelve months from February 14, 2026.
The order relied on six criminal cases registered against the detenu in 2024 and 2025, relating to the alleged illegal cutting and smuggling of red sanders. Five were registered by the Red Sanders Anti-Smuggling Task Force Police Station, Tirupati, and one by Bangarupalem UPS, Chittoor.
His wife, S. Preethi, filed the habeas corpus petition seeking his release.
Arguments
Advocate D. Purnachandra Reddy, appearing for the petitioner, raised two grounds. First, the detenu had been granted anticipatory bail on March 6, 2025, in one of the six cases, but the bail application was not placed before the detaining authority. Second, a representation sent on April 17, 2026, was rejected only on June 15, 2026. The Collector took 38 days to furnish remarks after the Government called for them, and the Government took another 14 days to reject it, a total delay of 52 days.
Assistant Government Pleader Akula Venkata Sai Jagadeesh, appearing for the respondents, did not dispute the dates. He submitted that the delay had been explained in a counter-affidavit and that there was no mandatory requirement to place every bail application before the detaining authority. He described the detenu as a habitual offender whose activities caused immense damage to the forest and disturbed public order.
Court’s Findings
On the bail issue, the Court found that the detention order specifically recorded the anticipatory bail granted to the detenu by the High Court. The Bench held: “When the bail order was considered, the copy of the bail application would not be a relevant material.”
On the delay, the affidavits stated that district officials and Collectorate staff were extensively engaged in census duties between April 16 and June 15, 2026, followed by preparatory work for the Election Commission’s SIR. This affected the processing of routine office work. The Court noted the steps taken at each stage to obtain remarks and held: “we are satisfied that the delay in considering the representation has been satisfactorily explained.”
The Bench added that the explanation, including the official duties being attended to during that period, “cannot be said to be unacceptable or unreasonable.” It concluded that “there is no unexplained or inordinate delay in considering and rejecting the representation so as to vitiate the order of preventive detention or the continued detention.”
Relying on Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, the Court reiterated that it “does not sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority”. It found the detention order well reasoned and free of any legal infirmity.
Outcome
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: S. Preethi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 14966 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar
Date: October 13, 2026
