A. Rajasheker Reddy, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed for issue of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to release the petitioner’s husband viz., Kamsani Yadagiri (for short ‘the detenu’) from detention, after quashing the detention order passed by respondent No.2 vide No.36/PDACT/CCRB/CCRB/RCKD/2018, dated 25.07.2018 under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act 1986 (Act No.1 of 1986) (for short ‘the Act of 1986’).

2. The sum and substance of the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition is that the petitioner is the wife of detenu. The 2nd respondent passed impugned detention order dated 25.07.2018 basing on one criminal case registered against detenu and the same is confirmed by the 1st respondent by its order in G.O.Rt.No.2202 dated 16.10.2018, without appreciating the material on record and that no material is furnished to the detenue, which vitiates the detention order. There is variance in the order of detention and the grounds of detention with the contents in FIR and other documents in Cr.No.220/2018 of Yadagirigutta Police Station with respect to the description of the Act. Though a case in Cr.No.220/2018 is registered under Section 2(i) of the Act of 1986, but no case under Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 is registered against the detenu. The detenu was granted bail in Crl.M.P.No.753/2018, but no copy of bail order or its translation is furnished to the detenu, as such, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside.

3. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and justified the reasons for passing detention order against detenue.

4. We have heard Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, submitted that the detenu was not supplied with the material papers viz., copy of bail order, final order etc., as such, there was no opportunity for the detenu for making effective representation against detention order which is in violation of rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, therefore, non furnishing of material papers vitiates the impugned detention order. He submitted that the detenu is not charged with any of the offences under Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Central Act 104 of 1956), as such, the detenu does not fall within the definition of ‘Immoral Traffic Offender’ as defined under Section 2(i) of the Act of 1986. He further submitted that in the order of detention, an un-amended enactment i.e., Act 1 of 1986 is mentioned whereas in the confirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.2202, dated 16.10.2018, the amended enactment is mentioned, as such, there is a variance in the order of detention and confirmation order with regard to the description of the Act, which caused any amount of confusion in the mind of the detenu. He further submitted that the detenu is not an accused in Cr.No.220/2017 under Sections 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 IPC, Sections 3 to 6 and 9 of ITP Act, 1956 as mentioned in detention order in telugu version, but he is an accused in Cr.No.220/2018 under Sections 370, 370(A) IPC sections,3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of ITP Act, 1956 of Police Station Yadagirigutta, as mentioned in the detention order in English version and that the detenu moved bail application vide Crl.M.P.No.753/2018, which is allowed by the V Addl.District Judge Court at Bhongiri on 24.07.2018, but he has not moved any bail application in Crl.M.P.No.680/2018 in Cr.No.220/2017, as such, there is no application of mind on the part of the detaining authority for arriving at subjective sa