SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 20

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, JJ.
Dharavath Laxmi - Petitioner 
Versus 
The State of Telangana and Others – Respondents
W.P. No.2133 of 2025
Decided On : 20-06-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Laxmaiah Kanchani.
For the Respondents:Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, the learned Special Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General

Preventive detention is justified when actions significantly threaten public health, establishing a disturbance of public order as defined under relevant statutes.

Headnote:(A) The TELANGANA PROHIBITION ACT, 1995 and The Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser 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 - Preventive detention and public health - Petitioner, through writ for habeas corpus, challenges detention orders citing lack of public order disturbance - Court addresses definition of 'public order' versus 'law and order' (Paras 24-28).

(B) Preventive detention justified under section 2(a) of 1986 Act due to unfit liquor posing health risks, constituting public order threat (Paras 36-39).

(C) Court underscores importance of swift investigation; non-action by authorities not condoned (Paras 47-57).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner seeks to overturn husband's preventive detention due to charges under the 1995 and 1986 Acts related to illicit liquor. Grounds include prior cases and health hazards of seized substances (Paras 1-4, 5, 23).

Findings of Court:
Detention is valid as actions jeopardized public health and safety, justifying preventive measures (Paras 53, 56).

Issues: The challenge involved whether the detention constituted a breach of public order; the relevance of habitual offending was also key (Para 24).

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that actions causing widespread danger to public health warrant preventive detention; mere possibility of crime does not nullify the necessity of detention based on past actions (Paras 49-56).

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to detention order (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments of the petitioner and respondents (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. understanding of habeas corpus (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. preventive vs. punitive detention (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. interpretation of public order (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
6. criteria for preventive detention (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
7. undisputed facts in the case (Para 22 , 23)
8. distinction between public order and law and order (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
9. widespread danger to public health (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
10. health risks associated with idl (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
11. habitual offender status (Para 35 , 36 , 37)
12. impact of spurious liquor on society (Para 38 , 39)
13. precedents referenced by petitioner (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
14. state's obligations in preventive detention (Para 46 , 47)
15. alignment with supreme court precedent (Para 48 , 49)
16. procedural compliance of detention (Para 50 , 51 , 52)
17. justification of detention order (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
18. conclusion and orders (Para 57 , 58)
19. dismissing the writ petition (Para 59)

ORDER:

(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu against an order of detention dated 25.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.2/District Collector & District Magistrate, Warangal. The petitioner also challenges an order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the respondent No.1/State of Telangana, represented by its Chief Secretary, General Administration (Law & Order) Department, confirming the detention of the petitioner’s husband.

2. The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenu, who is presently lodged at the Central Prison, Cherlapally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, before this Court to set aside the impugned detention order as well as the confirmation order, and release of the detenu.

3. The impugned order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.2/District Collector & District Magistrate, Warangal, contains the grounds of detention. The detenu has been charged with engaging in the business of possession and sale of Illicitly Distilled Liquor (‘IDL’) in contravention of the provisions of The TELANGANA PROHIBITION ACT , 1995 (‘the 1995 Act’) as well as The TELANGANA PREVENTION OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF BOOT-LEGGERS, DACOITS, DRUG-OFFENDERS, GOONDAS, IMMORAL TRAFFIC OFFENDERS LAND-GRABBERS, SPURIOUS SEED OFFENDERS, INSECTICIDE OFFENDERS, FERTILISER 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 (‘the 1986 Act’).

4. The impugned detention order also contains the particulars of cases registered against the detenu under the provisions of the 1986 Actand subsequent cases registered under the provisions of the 1995 Act. The confirmation order dated 23.12.2024 reiterates the findings of the District Collector & District Magistrate, Warangal, and directing detention of the detenu for a period of 12 months from the date of detention (25.11.2024).

The Facts leading to the Impugned Order:

5. A case vide Crime Occurrence Report (COR)No.99 of 2024 was registered against the detenu on 01.04.2024 under section 7A read with section 8(e) of the 1995 Act, consequent upon 20 litres of liquor being seized from the detenu. The seized liquor was analyzed by the Chemical Examiner of the Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Warangal on 05.07.2024. The Chemical Examiner opined that the seized substance was “IDL” which is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. On 19.10.2024, a second case was registered under the provisions of the 1995 Act and 10 litres of liquor was seized from the detenu. On 28.10.2024, the Chemical Examiner analyzed the sample and opined that the seized IDL was unfit for human consumption and injurious to health

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top