MUDRAKOLA KRANTHI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Mudrakola Kranthi Kumar, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of his father, Mudrakola Venkatesham, S/o. Rajaiah, the detenu, challenging the detention order, dated 20.10.2020, passed by the respondent No.2-Collector and District Magistrate, Rajanna Sircilla District, whereby, the detenu was detained under Section 3(2) 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 & White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (for short, "P.D. Act"), and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.2054, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, dated 29.12.2020, passed by the Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana,.

(2.) We have heard the submissions of Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Mallareddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned detention order is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind. The detenu was elected as Councilor in the year 2014. Out of the two crimes viz., Crime Nos.103 and 488 of 2020 of Vemulawada Town Police Station relied upon by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu, in Crime No.103 of 2020, statutory bail was granted to the detenu and in Crime No.488 of 2020, notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. was served on the detenu. Without there being any cogent material on record, the detaining authority reached to the conclusion that the free movement of the detenu in the society will disturb the public order and the even tempo of public life. The impugned detention order is passed on surmises and conjectures. By no stretch of imagination, the acts alleged against the detenu in the grounds of detention could affect public tranquility. The detaining authority should not be influenced by extraneous considerations while reaching at subjective satisfaction to detain the detenu. Further, the cases alleged against the detenu do not add up to "disturbing the public order". They are confined within the ambit and scope of the word "law and order". Since the offences alleged, as grave as they may be, are under the Penal Code, the detenu can certainly be tried and convicted under the Penal Code. Thus, there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention laws. Hence, the impugned detention order tantamounts to colourable exercise of power. The detaining authority has to be extremely careful while passing the detention order, since the detention ipso facto adversely affects the fundamental right of personal liberty enjoyed by the people under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the detention order is legally unsustainable and ultimately, prayed to set aside the same and allow the Writ Petition as prayed for.