HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA WRIT PETITION Nos.26941 AND 26886 OF 2023 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Mr. M.A. Mujeeb, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mujib Kumar Sadasivuni, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Both the writ petitions are filed to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to release the detenus i.e., Nenavath Ravi S/o Nenavath Jagan and Munavath Ramesh S/o Chandu, who are now detained in Central Prison, Cherlapally, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, and to order their release forthwith by setting aside the detention orders, both dated 12.09.2023 passed by respondent No.2 declaring it as illegal.

3. Respondent No.2 passed the detention order dated

12.09.2023 against the detenus under the provisions of Section - 3 (2) of 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, 1 of 1986 (Amendment Act No.13 of 2018) (for short ‘Act No.1 of 1986’), terming him as a ‘Goonda’ as defined under Section - 2 (g) of the Act No.1 of 1986.

4. The impugned detention orders were passed by respondent No.2 - detaining authority relying on the following two (02) crimes:

5. Mr. M.A. Mujeeb, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned detention orders were issued without application of mind. The detaining authority did not consider the entire material properly including the nature of allegations levelled against the detenus etc. The offences alleged to have committed by the detenus do not disturb ‘public order’ and at best would be a law and order problem. The detaining authority did not consider all the said aspects and there is no subjective satisfaction arrived at by him while issuing the impugned detention orders. Thus, the detention order is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the allegations levelled against the detenus are serious and grave in nature and they had engaged in unlawful activities of chain snatchings in public places during day time, creating panic and scare among the public in an organized way not only under the limits of respondent No.2 Police Commisionerate, but also outside its jurisdiction. Thus, they are acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of ‘public order’, thereby disturbing peace and tranquility in the society. Therefore, they are termed as a ‘Goonda’ as defined in Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act No.1 of 1986. The detaining authority, considering the entire material available on record and after arriving at the subjective satisfaction only, passed the detention order in order to prevent the detenus from committing similar offences. There is no error in it.

7. Perusal of detention orders, both dated 12.09.2023, passed by respondent No.2 and the record would reveal that the detaining authority passed the impugned detention order aga