BURRY SRINIVAS Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Burry Srinivas, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of his son-in-law, Vadde Yellaiah @ Sudhakar, S/o. Narsaiah, the detenu, challenging the detention order, dated 18.07.2020, passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Suryapet District, the respondent No.3, and the subsequent confirmation order in G.O.Rt.No.1351, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana, dated 12.09.2020, 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").

(2.) We have heard the submissions of Sri Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record. ARR, J & Dr. SAJ 2 W.P.No.19788 of 2020

(3.) The 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 and without application of mind. The detenu is falsely implicated in the three criminal cases relied upon by the detaining authority for preventively detaining him. Admittedly, in all the three cases relied upon by the detaining authority, the detenu was granted bail by the Courts concerned. But, the detenu was again sent to judicial remand by invoking the draconian preventive detention laws. The basis for detaining the detenu is politically motivated, as the detenu is an active politician belonging to a political party. By no stretch of imagination, the acts alleged against the detenu in the grounds of detention could affect public tranquility. Further, there must be close proximity between the criminal actions of the detenu and the detention order. 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 and special law, the detenu can certainly be tried and convicted under the Penal Code and said special law. 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.