Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, P. SREE SUDHA, JJ.
Chandrakanth Siddharth Kamble – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 33560 of 2023
Decided On : 07-06-2024
Preventive Detention - Writ Petition - Telangana Prevention Of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 - Sections 2(p), 3(3), 6 - The court found the preventive detention order unlawful due to lack of jurisdiction, failure to establish public order disturbance, and reliance on insufficient grounds.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, engaged in garment trading, was issued a preventive detention order for being a fake document offender. He challenged the legality of the order and the accompanying proclamation notice, claiming it was based on unsubstantiated allegations and caused harm to his liberty.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the preventive detention order was issued without proper jurisdiction and failed to demonstrate that the petitioner's actions disturbed public order, thus rendering the order illegal.
Issues: Whether the preventive detention order was valid given the lack of jurisdiction and failure to establish a disturbance to public order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order', asserting that preventive detention requires a clear demonstration of public order disturbance, which was not established in this case.
Result: The preventive detention order and proclamation notice were set aside as unlawful.
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri R.Anurag, learned Counsel for petitioners and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader, representing Additional Advocate General, for respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner to declare/quash the Preventive Detention Order dated 02.06.2021 bearing No. 65/PD CELL/CYB/2021 issued and also proclamation notice dated 24.01.2023 bearing No. 65/PD.Cell/CYB/ 2021-23 issued by 2nd respondent, as illegal.
FACTS:
3. The petitioner engaged in the garment trading business in the State of Maharashtra for the past decade. However, he was surprised to see proclamation notice dated 24.01.2023 bearing No. 65/PD-Cell/CYB/2021-23 affixed to the wall of his house in the first week of April 2023. Allegedly, a Preventive Detention order was issued against him on 02.06.2021, declaring him as a Fake Document Offender under the Act by Respondent No. 2 herein.
4. The petitioner contends that in the proclamation notice, it is alleged that notices issued against him have been returned unserved despite all possible efforts, and he has been wilfully absconding and concealing himself to evade the execution of the alleged detention order dated 02.06.2021, thereby obstructing the process of law.
5. Upon perusing the contents of the proclamation notice, he immediately made efforts to obtain a copy of detention order No. 65 through an Advocate. He had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “RTI Act”) to the Public Information Officer, PD Cell of Respondent No. 2, requesting to provide the following information:
(b) Provide detailed information about the grounds of detention under the Act, recorded before the issuance of the preventive detention order.
(c) Provide a copy of the proceedings for the detention.
6. The petitioner states that, subsequently, he was informed that the RTI application was transferred to the Public Information Officer, ACP CCRB via C.No. A6/94/RTI/Cyb/2023 dated 20.04.2023. The 2nd respondent issued a reply dated 05.05.2023, bearing C.No. A-6/94/RTI/Cyb/2023, stating that the information sought is related to the Special Branch (SB) and is exempted from furnishing under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, and as per G.O. Ms. No. 667, General Administration (GPM & AR) Department dated 30.09.2007 of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. In the reply letter dated 05.05.2023 stated that such information cannot be furnished as it pertains to a third party and the detention order was still not executed.
7. The petitioner contends that the Preventive Detention order is causing serious injury to his life and liberty as a citizen. It is an extreme measure employed by the State when ordinary criminal law is insufficient to control activities causing disturbance to Public Order. The State has sufficient remedies available under the general laws for any omission or commission, and arbitrarily labelling the petitioner as a fake document offender without specifying the alleged crimes, is unjust. In the present case, there is no disturbance to Public Order and not affected the maintenance of Law and Order. Therefore, the order of detention based on a solitary crime and the consequential Preventive Detention orders are unlawful.
8. The petitioner herein filed W.P. No. 32202/2023 challenging the proclamation notice dated 24.01.2023 in order to procure a copy of Preventive Detention order. This Court, vide order dated 22.11.2023, disposed of the same holding as follows:
Preventive detention must be justified by a clear disturbance to public order, not merely by allegations of individual offenses.
(1) Mere contravention of law such as indulging in cheating or criminal breach of trust certainly affects ‘law and order’ but before it can be said to affect ‘public order’, it must affect the commun....
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of a threat to public order, not merely the existence of FIRs; such orders cannot substitute for ordinary law enforcement.
Preventive detention requires substantive evidence linking the detenue's activities to a disturbance of public order, not just the registration of FIRs.
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of a threat to public order, not merely the existence of criminal charges, to justify the detention.
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of disruption to public order, not merely the existence of criminal charges.
The detention order must be based on valid grounds related to public order, and the detaining authority must consider all relevant facts, including the petitioner's release on bail for all offenses.
Preventive detention requires substantial evidence linking the detainee's actions to a threat to public order, not merely the registration of FIRs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
