C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

1. The detention of three individuals (hereinafter referred as the detenus), who were allegedly working in tandem in commission of property offences, made under separate but identical orders is questioned in these Writ Petitions.

2. As the facts in all these three cases are identical, it will suffice if we refer to the facts in one case. Accordingly, we have chosen WP.No.46833 of 2016 for this purpose.

3. The detenus are accused in 12 property related offences. These Criminal Cases were registered by different Police Stations in the city of Hyderabad and some other places. The allegation against the detenus is that in the guise of polishing gold and silver articles in the limits of Hyderabad and Cyberabad Police Commissionerates, Adilabad and Nizamabad Districts of Telangana State and also in the State of Maharashtra, they had been indulging in a series of property offences, thereby, creating large scale fear among the public and affecting public order. The allegations on which all the 12 criminal cases have been registered reveal that the detenus had been deceiving the women folk by adopting a specific pattern. It is alleged that they undertake to polish gold and silver articles; that in that process, they divert the attention of the people by showing them brass and copper polished items and asking them to hand over their gold ornaments for polishing; that trusting them, when the gold ornaments are handed over to them, they ask the owner of the ornaments to bring a vessel with water for cleaning purpose; that when the vessel with water is brought, the detenus mix some colour in it, ask the owner of the ornaments to boil it and take out the ornaments after five minutes; that when the owner of the ornaments goes to the kitchen to boil the same, the detenus flee the scene with the gold ornaments.

4. Out of 12 criminal cases, the grounds of detention referred to 9 recent cases. The detention orders were passed on 23-11- 2016 and were served on the detenus on 26.11.2016. By the time of passing of the detention orders, the detenus obtained bail in one of the criminal cases on 12-09-2016 and in another Criminal Case, bail application is pending. While the advisory board scheduled its meeting on 02-01-2017 to consider the legality or otherwise of the detention orders, the petitioners filed these Writ Petitions on 30-12-2016. The detention orders were approved on 01-12-2016 and confirmed on 10-02-2017 after the advisory board rendered its advice on 02.01.2017. It has come to our notice during the hearing that before filing these Writ Petitions, the detenus have not submitted representations to the advisory board.

5. Smt.B.Mohana Reddy, learned Counsel for the detenus, advanced three submissions:

(1) That failure of the detaining authority to give the detenus an opportunity of making representation against the detention orders before the same were approved vitiates the detention orders;

(2) That the nature of offences registered against the detenus reveals that the charges, if proved, would only fall within the realm of law and order problem; that the same does not cause disturbance to public order; and that therefore, the detention orders are not sustainable in law;

(3) That as on the date of passing of the detention orders, the detenus were in judicial custody; that even though bail was secured in one case, they could not furnish sureties; that as bails were not granted in 11 other Criminal Cases, there was no reasonable possibility of their coming out of the judicial custody; and that therefore, the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is not based on objective criterion.

6. Opposing the above submissions, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the detaining authority has strictly complied with the provisions of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short the Act), besides