S S SINGH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the preventive detention order in Proc.No.C3/616/2018 dated 16.03.2018 issued by respondent No.2 under Section 3(1) & (2) read with Section 2(a) and (b) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act No.1 of 1986), as confirmed by respondent No.1 through G.O. Rt.No.849, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order) Department, dated 03.05.2018, in re Shiva Patel, son of Balmik Patel. The preventive detention order dated 16.03.2018 was executed on the same day. That has been confirmed for a period of one year. That will end by 15.03.2019.

(2.) We have perused the material papers produced by the writ petitioner as well as the Government and have also perused the pleadings in the writ petition and those contained in the counter affidavit. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who claims to be the uncle of the detenu. We have also heard the learned Government Pleader for Home (Telangana).

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the material papers supplied to the detenu along with the order of detention contained papers, which were not in Hindi, while it is the admitted position, as available from the records, that the detenu has knowledge of Hindi and scarce knowledge of English. The plea is that Hindi translation of the bail orders, which were in English, were not furnished to the detenu. The bail orders were issued by the Court by imposing conditions on the detenu. He was required, as per the bail orders, to appear before the Station House Officer on every Sunday between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. That order was issued by the Court where excise offences are considered. It is argued that that the existence of such a condition and the insufficiency of such condition to exclude the detenu from engaging in prejudicial activities, which would fall under the Act, have not been considered and no subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the detaining authority on that issue. It is further argued on the strength of the decisions of this Court in I. Dhanalaxmi v. State of Telangana, 2017 1 ALD(Cri) 115 and Md. Naseem v. State of Telangana (W.P. No.32398 of 2018 dated 09.11.2018 - unreported) that the question whether the activity attributed to the detenu is merely one that would fall under the Excise Laws or one, which could be treated as an activity, which if permitted, would endanger life; to attract the provisions of the preventive detention law has not been considered by the detaining authority and no subjective satisfaction on that issue has been recorded.