KRISHNA Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (LAW AND ORDER) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS HYDERABAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Two persons, by name, Mr. Surender Singh and Mr. Phool Singh, were detained by separate, but identical orders passed on 07.03.2016 by respondent No.2, under sub-section (2) of Sec. 3 of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug- Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, the Act). The aforementioned orders were confirmed by respondent No.1 vide G.O. Rt. No.1222, General Administration (Law & Order) Department, and G.O. Rt. No.1221, General Administration (Law & Order) Department, both dated 31.5.2016 respectively. Assailing these orders, the mother and the wife of the detenus respectively, filed these writ petitions for their release from detention by issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus.

(2.) In support of their challenge to the detention orders, the petitioners have mainly raised two pleas, namely, (i) that the activities of the detenus even assuming to be true do not disturb public order, that the same at best would be a law and order problem and that therefore the provisions of the preventive detention law cannot be invoked as the ordinary penal laws are sufficient to deal with the detenus and (ii) that the orders of the detention, the grounds of detention and the material relied upon by the detaining authority for detention of the detenus were not served on the detenus in Hindi language, the only language known to them, within the statutory period of five days of their detention in order to make a representation against the detention orders to the authorities concerned. It is further averred that the detenus were served with the orders of detention, grounds of detention and the material relied upon by the detaining authority in English language on 08.3.2016 and that all the translated copies were served on them one month after they were detained, which amounts to denial of the right of the detenus to make an effective representation to the authorities concerned as provided under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Identical but separate counter affidavits have been filed by Mr. M. Mahendar Reddy, Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City. The counter affidavits have termed the activities of the detenus as disturbing public order, i.e., disturbing the even tempo of life of the people, and that therefore the detention orders cannot be interfered with on the ground of nonexistence of disturbance to public order. As regards the plea of the petitioners that the detenus were not supplied with the translated copies of the orders of detention, the grounds of detention and the material relied upon by the detaining authority in Hindi language within the stipulated period of five days, in paragraph 8 it is stated as under: