JUDGMENT

B. Vijaysen Reddy, J. - The order of detention passed against Gorre Kannaiah, S/o. late Lingaiah, dated 01.12.2019, by the Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam and as confirmed by the State vide G.O.Rt.No.225 dated 27.01.2020, are challenged in this writ of Habeas Corpus as illegal and unconstitutional. The detention order was passed treating him as 'Goonda' under Section 2(g) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertilizer 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 (Amendment Act No.13 of 2018) (for short 'the Act').

2. Heard Dr. B. Karthik Navayan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Srikanth Reddy, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned detention order suffers from non-application of mind, as the same was passed on stale ground and does not satisfy the proximity test. The detenu cannot read or write English but the respondent No.3 had served copies of the material in English. The alleged activities of the detenu do not come within the purview of public order and the detaining authority did not assign any reason for coming to such conclusion. The detention order is passed mechanically without looking into the facts of the case that ordinary law is sufficient to deal with the activities of the detenu and the satisfaction of the detaining authority that normal law may not be an effective deterrent is unfounded, unconstitutional and illegal.

4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader, while opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, asserted that the detenu engaged himself in unlawful acts and indulged in offences of burglaries in temples creating large scale fear and feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public, particularly, the devotees who visit the temple and the same are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detaining authority having satisfied that such acts have the potential of disturbing the public order, passed the detention order with a view to prevent the detenu from further indulging in such prejudicial activities, in the larger public interest. The detenu answers the description of 'Goonda' as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act.

5. As seen from the detention order, the detaining authority referred to seven cases which cases are considered as ground cases for detention. The seven ground cases with relevant details as reflected in the detention order are shown as below: