VEERANGANDHAM VENKATA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Veerangandham Venkata Rao, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of his son, Yedunuri Sandinti Teja @ Teja Reddy @ Avinash Reddy @ Veeragandham Teja, S/o. Venkat Rao, aged about 23 years, the detenu, challenging the detention order, vide No.62/PD-CELL/CCRB/RCKD/2020, dated 10.11.2020, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, the respondent No.3, 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 and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (for short "P.D. Act").

(2.) We have heard the submissions of Sri M.Laxman Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Malla Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned detention order is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, improper, against the principles of natural justice and has been passed in a mechanical manner basing upon vague, irrelevant and non-existing grounds. Already criminal law was set into motion against the detenu. Hence, there is no need for the respondents to invoke draconian preventive detention laws against him. The allegation against the detenu is that he is habitually cheating the innocent job aspirants by collecting huge amounts from them on the pretext of providing jobs in Government and private sectors and thus acting in a manner which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and thereby disturbing the peace, tranquility and social harmony in the society. In any event, the said allegation would not satisfy the word 'White Collar Offender'. All the six crimes relied upon by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu are foisted against the detenu. Further, in four out of the six crimes relied upon by the detaining authority, the detenu was granted bail by the Courts concerned. Further, the subjective satisfaction reached by the detaining authority is illegal and tainted. The documents relied upon by the detaining authority were not supplied to the detenu. Further, the cases alleged against the detenu do not fall within the ambit and scope of "disturbing the public order". They are confined within the ambit and scope of the word "law and order". Since the detenu is alleged to be a 'White Collar Offender', he can certainly be tried and convicted under the Penal Code and/or special law, if any. 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 detenu under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The detenu continues to be in judicial custody since 10.11.2020 and his health has been deteriorated and his family members are facing financial crisis. The detention order is legally unsustainable and ultimately, prayed to set aside the same and allow the writ petition as prayed for.