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
| 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
Pesala Nookaraju Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh
Nenavath Bujji Vs. State of Telangana
Home Secretary (Prison) Vs. H. Nilofer Nisha
Kanu Sanyal Vs. District Magistrate, Darjeeling
Haradhan Saha Vs. The State of West Bengal
Brij Bhushan Vs. State of Delhi
Romesh Thappar Vs. State of Madras
Ram Manohar Lohia Vs. State of Bihar
Pushkar Mukherjee Vs. State of West Bengal
Babul Mitra alias Anil Mitra Vs. State of West Bengal
Dipak Bose alias Naripada Vs. State of West Bengal
Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telangana
Preventive detention is justified when actions significantly threaten public health, establishing a disturbance of public order as defined under relevant statutes.
(1) Preventive Detention - Power of preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention - An order of preventive detention, may be made before or during prosecution - Pendency of ....
(1) Preventive Detention - Recourse to preventive detention can be taken by executive merely on suspicion and as a precaution to prevent activities by person, sought to be detained, prejudicial to ce....
Detention order – Justified - Cases registered under the NDPS Act - Drug-offender – Exclusion of two criminal cases registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections....
The judgment established the principle that preventive detention under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1968 requires evidence showing that the detenue's acts are prejudicial to public order or ca....
(1) Preventive detention – There is fine distinction between “law and order” and “public order” – Mere registration of three offences by itself would not have any bearing on maintenance of public ord....
Preventive detention laws can be invoked even when criminal proceedings are ongoing, and activities deemed prejudicial to public order can warrant detention under the law.
(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....
Manufacturing and selling illicit liquor is considered prejudicial to public order, justifying preventive detention under the A.P. Prohibition Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.