KOLIPAKA SWAPNA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Commissioner of Police and Additional District Magistrate (Executive), Ramagundam, in exercise of power 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, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar of Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (Act No.1 of 1986), passed orders of detention dated 04.07.2021. The Commissioner holds that the detenu has been committing series of offences of theft of Solar Power Plant power cables and conveyor belt of Coal Handling Plant belongs to Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL). He assesses that theft of power cables and conveyor belt caused huge financial loss to the SCCL, which may cause interruption to the Power Generation and supply of power to the coal mines as well as cause interruption to the power generation by NTPC, Ramagundam, which supplies power to the States in South India, thereby adversely affecting the public order and causing huge loss to the public property. The Government accorded approval to the said detention order. Against the said detention, the petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu filed this Writ Petition.

(2.) Heard Mr. V.Raghunath learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for learned Additional Advocate General for respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the offences alleged against the detenu are only minor offences under Indian Penal Code, and merely because three crimes were registered against him and merely because he is categorized as 'goonda ', is no ground to resort to preventive detention. The offences alleged against the detenu are crimes against the individuals. They are only affecting the 'law and order ' and in no manner they affect the public order and, therefore, based on the alleged offences, the Commissioner of Police ought not to have exercised the extraordinary power of detention.