RUKMINI DEVI RENDLA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detention order dated 16.02.2020 passed against Rendla Abhinay @ Bablu, S/o. Late mallaiah, by the Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam, respondent No.2, in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 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 (Amendment Act No.13 of 2018) (for short 'the Act') and as confirmed by the State vide G.O.Rt.No.494 dated 22.02.2020 are challenged in this Writ of Habeas Corpus as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

(2.) Heard Mrs. Sujatha Kurapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detenu was falsely implicated in the crimes referred in the detention order. The impugned detention order has been passed on flimsy grounds without any basis in a mechanical manner, without application of mind. There is no material to substantiate and justify for treating the detenu as 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act. The crimes wherein the detenu is allegedly involved can be dealt with under ordinary law. Further, the alleged activities of the detenu come within the purview of maintenance of law and order and not public order. Hence, the impugned detention order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.