Point of Law :
expression “compelling reasons” as there must be cogent reasons before the detaining authority on the basis of which it may be satisfied that (a) the detenu is likely to be released from custody in the near future, (b) taking into account the nature of the antecedent of the activities of the detenu, it is likely that, after he is released from custody, he would indulge in prejudicial activities and (c) it is necessary to detain him to prevent him from engaging in such activities

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed this habeas corpus writ petition on behalf of his brother, Banoth Venkanna, in order to challenge the detention order 16.11.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Warangal City, Warangal Urban District, the respondent No. 2, and the consequential conformation order, namely G.O.Rt. No. 116, General Administration [(SPL) Law and Order] Department dated 16.01.2020, passed by Principal Secretary to Government (Poll), the respondent No. 1. By the former order, Banoth Venkanna was detained 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 (Amendment) Act, 1986 (‘the Act’ for short). By the latter order, the respondent No. 1 has confirmed the detention order of the detenu.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that during 2019 the police had registered two different cases against the detenu under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (‘the NDPS Act’ for short). Crime No. 117 of 2019 was registered for offences under Sections 8(c) r/w Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act on the file of Rayaparthy Police Station. Crime No. 121 of 2019 was also registered against the detenu for offences under Section 8(c) r/w Section 20 (b)(ii) of the NDPS Act on the file of Wardhannapet Police Station. Relying on the two criminal cases registered in 2019, the Commissioner of Police, respondent No. 2 passed a detention order on 16.11.2019 against the detenu. According to the respondent No. 2, since the detenu was peddling “Ganja” he falls under the definition of “drug offender” as defined in Clause (f) of Section 2 of the Act. Since he has been repeatedly violating the provisions of the NDPS Act, since peddling of drugs adversely affects the youth, his conduct has become prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Moreover, while in Crime No. 121 of 2019 allegedly “Ganja” weighing 225 kgs. was recovered from the possession of the detenu, in Crime No. 117 of 2019, 20 kgs. of “Ganja” was recovered from the detenu’s possession. Thus, the amount of “Ganja” being carried by the detenu was commercial quantity. Thereby making the detenu as a potential threat to the maintenance of public order. Lastly, considering the fact that the detenu was also granted bail in one case, namely Crime No. 117 of 2019 the chances of his being granted bail in the other case was also high. Therefore, in order to prevent the detenu from disturbing the public order, the said preventive detention order was passed by the respondent No. 2. The said preventive detention order was subsequently confirmed by the respondent No. 1 by its order dated 16.01.2020. Hence, the present habeas corpus petition before this Court.

3. Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this court:-

“Firstly, both the cases registered against the detenu are under a special Act namely, the NDPS Act. Therefore, the detenu can be tried, convicted, and sentenced under the provisions of the said Act. Hence, the draconian law of preventive detention should not have been invoked against the detenu.

Secondly, there is a vast difference between the “law and order” and “public order.” While a “law and order” case adversely affects an individual a “public order” case adversely affects a large segment of the society. The alleged sale of drug does not adversely affect a large segment of society. Therefore, mere sale of drugs does not amount to an act “prejudicial to the maintenance of a public order.” Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were not justified in passing and confirming