Point of Law: Every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder. When two drunkards quarrel and fight there is disorder but not public disorder. They can be dealt with under the powers to maintain law and order but cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. Suppose that the two fighters were of rival communities and one of them tried to raise communal passions. The problem is still one of law and order but it raises the apprehension of public disorder. Other examples can be imagined. The contravention of law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Defence of India Act but disturbances which subvert the public order are. A District Magistrate is entitled to take action under Rule 30(1)(b) to prevent subversion of public order but not in aid of maintenance of law and order under ordinary circumstances

ORDER:

SHAMEEM AKTHER, J.

1. Sri Charakonda Chinna Chennaiah, the petitioner, has filed this present petition on behalf of his son, Charagonda Uday Kiran @ Uday, the detenu, challenging the detention order vide NO.48/PD-CELL/CYB/2020, dated 28.09.2020, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate, the respondent No.3.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that by relying on a single criminal case registered against the detenu in the year 2020 (Crime No.452/2020 of Shadnagar Police Station), the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate, the respondent No.3, passed the detention order dated 28.09.2020. According to the respondent No.3, the detenu is a Sexual Offender' as defined in clause (v) of Section 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 and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986) and he has committed penetrative aggravated sexual assault on a minor girl by name Kum. G. Gouri, aged 13 years, for three times throughout the night on 26.06.2020, within the limits of Shadnagar Police Station of Cyberabad Police Commissionerate. Subsequently, by order dated 28.11.2020, the detention order was confirmed by the Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law and Order) Department, Government of Telangana. Hence, this writ petition before this Court.

4. Dr. B. Karthik Navayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court:

Firstly, that relying only on single case registered against the detenu in the year 2020, the impugned detention order is passed.

Secondly, the alleged case 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 a special legislation, i.e., Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the detenu can certainly be tried and convicted under the Penal Code and the said special legislation. Thus, there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention laws against the detenu. Hence, the impugned order tantamounts to the colourable exercise of power.

Thirdly, the detaining authority is not justified in invoking a draconian power under the preventive detention laws against the detenu. According to the learned counsel, the detaining authority has to be extremely careful while passing a detention order. For detention ipso facto adversely affects the fundamental right of personal liberty enjoyed by the people under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Lastly, that the impugned detention order was passed on stale grounds, in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. In the impugned detention order, though it was stated that the activities of the detenu is affecting the Public Order, but no reasons are assigned to come to such a conclusion. Thus, the impugned orders are legally unsustainable.

5. On the other hand, Sri G.Malla Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the Additional Advocate General for the respondents would submit that in the single case relied by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu, the detenu managed to get bail from the Court concerned. The crime allegedly committed by the detenu was sufficient to cause a fee