ORDER :

SHAMEEM AKTHER, J.

Smt. Farhat Kausar, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of her husband, Mohd. Jumman, S/o Mohd. Alam, aged about 33 years, the detenu, challenging the detention order, dated 21.08.2020, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, the respondent No.2, wherein, the detenu 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, 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 & White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (for short "P.D. Act") and the confirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.1631, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, dated 28.10.2020, passed by the Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order) Department, Government of Telangana.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Mallareddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents, and perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned detention order is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, improper and against the principles of natural justice and has been passed in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. The detenu is implicated in the solitary case relied upon by the detaining authority for preventively detaining him basing upon his confession. Admittedly, in the solitary case relied upon by the detaining authority, the detenu was granted bail by the Court concerned. But, the detenu was again sent to judicial remand by invoking the draconian preventive detention laws. Preventive detention shall not be made a substitute for punitive detention. There is no prejudicial activity attributed to the detenu after his release on bail in the alleged criminal case. The material papers served on the detenu were not in the language known to the detenu and as such, the detenu is unable to know the contents of the same so as to make an effective representation. The detaining authority erroneously formed an opinion and came to conclusion that the activities of the detenu are creating large scale fear and panic among the general public and adversely affecting the public order. Further, the criminal case alleged against the detenu does not add up to ‘disturbing the public order’. It is confined within the ambit and scope of the word ‘law and order’. Since the offences alleged are under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO’ Act) and Epidemic Diseases Act, 1987, the said case can certainly be dealt with under the Penal Code and the said special legislations. Thus, there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention laws. Hence, the impugned order tantamount to the colourable exercise of power. The detaining authority has to be extremely careful while passing the detention order, since the detention ipsofacto adversely affects the fundamental right of personal liberty enjoyed by the people under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, the detenu was not supplied with the documents relied upon by the detaining authority in the language known to him, i.e., Hindi. Thus, the impugned orders are legally unsustainable and ultimately prayed to set aside the same and allow the writ petition as prayed for.

4. On the other hand, Sri G.Mallareddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents would submit that th