IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive detention – For inaction of Police, detaining authority cannot be permitted to invoke preventive detention laws, in order to breach liberty of an individual.

ORDER

A. Abhishek Reddy, J.—Sri Konety Hemanth Kumar, the son of the detenu viz., Konety Satyanarayana, has filed the present Writ Petition, challenging the Detention Order passed by the 2nd respondent, who by exercising the powers conferred under Section 3 (2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’), vide proceedings SB(I) No.106/PD-6/HYD/2019, dated 19.08.2019, and confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.2628 General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order) Department, dated 11.10.2019, alleging that the detenu has been engaging himself in unlawful acts of drug peddling, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The ground on which the impugned detention order is passed by the 2nd respondent is that the detenu was involved in crime No.28/2019 of Saidabad Police Station.

2) It is the case of the petitioner that the detenu was falsely implicated in the above referred case. Even though, the detenu was granted bail by the concerned Court, he continued to be in judicial custody, due to passing of the impugned detention order and the same is passed only to see that the detenu does not come out of the jail. Hence, the present writ petition.

3) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order.

4) Mrs. Ravula Sowmya Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that relying on a solitary case registered against the detenu, the impugned detention order is passed. She further submits that the alleged cases do not amount to ‘disturbing the public order’. They are confined within the ambit and scope of the word ‘law and order’. Since the offences alleged are under Narcotic, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the detenu can certainly be tried and convicted under the said Act. Thus, there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention laws. Hence, the impugned order tantamounts to the colourable exercise power. Thus, the impugned orders are legally unsustainable.

5) On the other hand, Mr. S.Sharath Kumar, the learned Special Government Pleader, pleads that the detenu obtained bail from the concerned Court. The crime allegedly committed by him was sufficient to endanger the lives of youth causing irreparable damage to their body organs. Since the modus of the crime is peddling of drugs, it has created sufficient panic and fear in the minds of the general public. Therefore, the detaining authority was legally justified in passing the impugned detention order. Hence, the learned Special Government Pleader has supported the impugned orders.

6) In view of the submissions made by both the sides, the point that rises for determination in this Writ Petition is: “Whether the detention order, dated 19.08.2019, passed by the 2nd respondent and the confirmation Order, dated 11.10.2019, passed by the 1st respondent are liable to be set aside or not?”

POINT:

7) In catena of decisions the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have held that there is a vast difference between “law and order” and “public order”. The offences which are committed against a particular individual fall within the ambit of “law and order”. It is only when the public at large is adversely affected by the criminal activities of a person, the conduct of a person is said to disturb “the public order”. Moreover, individual cases can be dealt with by the criminal justice system. Therefore, there is no need for t