ORDER :

1. The detention order passed against Kamble Dhanraj, S/o. late Manvar, dated 29.10.2019, by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 3 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') and as approved by the Government vide G.O. Rt. No. 291 dated 30.01.2020, are challenged by way of this writ of Habeas Corpus as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Ms. R. Sowmya Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Sharath Kumar, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds of detention are vague and the detention order is passed in a mechanical way. The activities of the detenu can be dealt with under ordinary criminal law. Moreover, there is no material to brand the detenu as habitual offender and the activities of the detenu do not come within the purview of public order.

4. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader submits that the detenu is involved in theft of gold ornaments, cell phones and wallets from the passengers traveling in RTC buses along with his associates in an organized manner in the limits of Hyderabad Police Commissionerate. The detenu has created large scale fear and panic among public, thereby, adversely affected public order. The detenu answers the description of Goonda under Section 2(g) of the Act and his activities attract the expression "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order", as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act. There is possibility of detenu indulging in similar activities, which could affect maintenance of public order. Hence, the detaining authority formed subjective satisfaction that ordinary criminal law will not have deterrent effect in curbing the prejudicial activities of the detenu and as such, passed the detention order in larger public interest. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. The detenu is alleged to have been involved in seven criminal cases between 2008-2017, which were taken as antecedent criminal history. In the detention order, five cases have been considered as grounds for detention, as shown below: