Pochaiah vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4995 Tel

       * THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
                           AND
        * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

+ W.P.Nos.31745, 31752, 31754, 31755 & 31765 OF 2022

% Date: 11th October, 2022
W.P.No.31745 of 2022
Between:

K.Mamatha
                                             ... Petitioner
                                    and

The State of Telangana and others
                                          ... Respondents

W.P.No.31752 of 2022

Between:

Gangajala ... Petitioner and

The State of Telangana and others ... Respondents W.P.No.31754 of 2022

Between:

Jamuna ... Petitioner and

The State of Telangana and others ... Respondents W.P.No.31755 of 2022

Between:

Sarojana ... Petitioner and

The State of Telangana and others ... Respondents Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

W.P.No.31765 of 2022

Between:

Pochaiah ... Petitioner and

The State of Telangana and others ... Respondents

! Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt. B.Mohana Reddy, Advocate

^ Counsel for the Respondents : Sri S.Mujib Kumar, Spl. G.P.

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1. (2006) 6 SCC 14

2. Decided on 26.04.2019 in W.P.Nos.41946 & batch

3. (1992) 1 SCC 1

4. AIR 1966 SC 740

5. (1972) 3 SCC 831

6. (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 415

7. 2022 SCC Online SC 424

8. (2018) 12 Supreme Court Cases 150

9. AIR 1966 SC 740

10. (1984) 3 SCC 14 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

W.P. Nos.31745, 31752, 31754, 31755 & 31765 OF 2022

COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther)

Though the petitioners in these five Writ Petitions are

different, since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one

and the same and since the detenus in these writ petitions are

the accused in the same crime, all these Writ Petitions are taken

up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.No.31745 of 2022 is filed by Mrs.K.Mamatha, who is

the wife of the detenu, namely Kandela Srinivas, W.P.No.31752

of 2022 is filed by Mrs.Gangajala, who is the wife of the detenu,

namely Vanam Shekhar, W.P.No.31754 of 2022 is filed by

Mrs.Jamuna, who is the wife of the detenu, namely Vanam @

Kedari Durgaiah @ Chinna Durgaiah, W.P.No.31755 of 2022 is

filed by Mrs.V.Sarojana, who is the wife of the detenu, namely

Vanam Chinna Gangaiah and W.P.No.31765 of 2022 is filed by

Mr.Pochaiah, who is the father of the detenu, namely Vanam

Durgaiah @ Durga Prasad, challenging the separate detention

orders of the even date, dated 05.07.2022, passed by

respondent No.2-Collector and District Magistrate, Jagtial Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

District, vide Rc.No.C1/724-1/2022, Rc.No.C1/724-5/2022,

Rc.No.C1/724-3/2022, Rc.No.C1/724-2/2022 and Rc.No.C1/

724-4/2022 respectively, and the consequential confirmation

orders of the even date, dated 06.09.2022, passed by the

Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law &

Order)) Department, Government of Telangana, vide

G.O.Rt.Nos.1702, 1706, 1704, 1703 and 1705 respectively.

Vide impugned detention orders, the respective detenus were

detained under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Preventive

Detention Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986).

3. We have heard the submissions of Smt. B.Mohana Reddy,

learned counsel for the petitioners in all these writ petitions, Sri

S.Mujib Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing

for the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents

and perused the record.

4. The background facts of the case, in brief, is that by

relying on a solitary crime registered against the detenus in

these writ petitions in Crime No.22 of 2022 of Jagtial Rural

Police Station, Jagtial District, registered for the offences under

Sections 120B, 147, 148, 302 read with 149 of IPC, the

respondent No.2-Collector and District Magistrate, Jagtial Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

District, passed the impugned detention orders of the even date,

dated 05.07.2022. According to the respondent No.2, the

detenus are 'goondas', as they have indulged in brutal murder of

three persons belonging to one family, in broad daylight, in

public place, by inflicting fatal injuries with spears and knives in

the limits of Jagtial Rural Police Station, creating large scale fear

and panic among the general public, thereby adversely affecting

the maintenance of public order, the impugned detention orders

of the even date, dated 05.07.2022 were passed, which were

confirmed by the Government by the orders of the even date,

dated 06.09.2022. Hence, these writ petitions before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions

vehemently contended that the impugned detention orders are

illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, improper, against the

principles of natural justice and has been passed in a mechanical

manner and without application of mind. The impugned

detention orders were passed basing on a solitary crime. The

alleged criminal activities of the detenus, in any event, would

not satisfy the word 'goonda', as defined under 2(g) of the

Telangana Act 1 of 1986. The detaining authority has not

applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

while passing the impugned detention orders. All the detenus

were granted conditional statutory/ mandatory bail under

Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., by the Court concerned in the solitary

crime relied by the detaining authority and the detenus are

complying the conditions imposed in the statutory/mandatory

bail order. Further, there are no criminal antecedents against

the detenus. After the release of the detenus from judicial

custody in the solitary crime, they have not indulged in any

criminal activities and no fresh criminal cases have been

registered against them. Under these circumstances, the

apprehension of the detaining authority that the there is

imminent possibility of the detenus indulging in similar offences,

which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that

the free movement of the detenus in the society would disturb

the 'public order' and the even tempo of public life and that their

presence in the society is not in the interest and safety of the

society, unless they are prevented from doing so by an

appropriate order or detention, is highly misplaced. Further, the

solitary crime relied by the detaining authority does not add up

to "disturbing the public order" and it is confined within the

ambit and scope of the word "law and order". Since the

offences alleged against the detenus are under Indian Penal Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

Code, the detenus 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 law against the

detenus. Hence, the impugned orders tantamount to colourable

exercise of power. The subjective satisfaction recorded by the

detaining authority in detaining the detenus is tainted and

illegal. Preventive detention cannot be made a substitute to

punitive detention. 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 impugned detention orders are

legally unsustainable and ultimately, prayed to set aside the

same and allow the writ petitions as prayed for. In support of

her contentions, the learned counsel had relied on the decision

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.Kalavathi Vs. State of T.N. and

others1 and a decision of this Court in Mrs.T.Padmaja and

others Vs. State of Telangana and others2.

6. On the other hand, the learned Special Government

Pleader appearing for the respondents, supported the impugned

(2006) 6 SCC 14

Decided on 26.04.2019 in W.P.Nos.41946 & batch Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

detention orders and submitted that the unlawful activities of

the detenus squarely fall under the definition of the word

'goonda' defined under clause (g) of Section 2 of the Telangana

Act 1 of 1986. In the solitary crime relied by the detaining

authorities, the detenus have indulged in brutal murder of three

persons belonging to one family, in broad daylight, in public

place, by inflicting fatal injuries with spears and knives in the

limits of Jagtial Rural Police Station, which created large scale

fear and panic among the general public, which is prejudicial to

the maintenance of public order. With a view to prevent the

detenus from indulging in similar prejudicial activities, the

impugned detention orders were passed. The subjective

satisfaction reached by the detaining authority in preventively

detaining the detenus is not tainted or illegal. Further, the

Advisory Board, upon hearing the detenus and the concerned

investigating officials and upon considering the entire material

placed before it, rendered its opinion that there is sufficient

cause for detention of the detenus. On considering the opinion

of the Advisory Board and upon considering the entire material,

the Government confirmed the impugned detention orders, vide

orders of the even date, dated 06.09.2022. Therefore, the

detaining authority was legally justified in passing the impugned Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

detention orders. Preventive detention is not to punish a

person for his/her illegal activities, but to prevent him from

doing so. An order of preventive detention may be made with

or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or

even acquittal. Pendency of prosecution is not a bar to pass an

order of detention and an order of preventive detention is also

not a bar to the prosecution. All the mandatory provisions and

the safeguards envisaged under the law were strictly followed,

while passing the impugned detention orders and hence, the

impugned detention orders do not suffer from illegality or

impropriety and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitions.

In support of his contentions, learned Special Government

Pleader had relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik Vs. Union of India and

others3.

7. In view of the submissions made by both sides, the points

that arise for determination in these Writ Petitions are as

follows:

1. Whether the detenus can be termed as 'goondas' as defined in clause (g) of Section 2 of the Telangana Act 1 of 1986?

(1992) 1 SCC 1 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

2. Whether the impugned detention orders of the even date, dated 05.07.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 and the consequential conformation orders of the even date, dated 06.09.2022, passed by the Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana, are liable to be set aside?

POINT No.1:-

8. Learned Special Government Pleader contended that the

unlawful activities of the detenus squarely fall under the

definition of the word 'goonda' defined under clause (g) of

Section 2 of the Telangana Act 1 of 1986. Clause (g) of Section

2 of the Telangana Act 1 of 1986, reads as follows:-

"Goonda" means a person, who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVIL or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act 45 of 1860).

The word "habitually" used in the above provision of law is

significant. The meaning of the words "habit" and "habitual" as

given in Advanced Law Lexicon, (3rd Edn.) as "Habit.--Settled

tendency or practice, mental constitution. The word 'habit'

implies a tendency or capacity resulting from the frequent

repetition of the same acts. The expression "habitual" would

mean "repeatedly" or "persistently" and implies a thread of

continuity, stringing together with similar repeated acts. The Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

word "habitually" does not refer to the frequency of the

occasions, but to the invariability of a practice and the habit has

to be proved by totality of facts. It, therefore, follows that the

complicity of a person in an isolated offence is neither evidence

nor a material of any help to conclude that a particular person is

a "dangerous person", unless there is material suggesting his

complicity in such cases, which lead to a reasonable conclusion

that the person is a habitual criminal. A person is said to be a

habitual criminal who, by force of habit or inward disposition, is

accustomed to commit crimes. It implies commission of such

crimes repeatedly or persistently and prima facie there should

be continuity in the commission of those offences. In the

instant case, the material placed on record reveals that the

detenus have no criminal antecedents. They were detained

basing on the aforementioned solitary crime registered against

them. Further, nothing is placed on record to substantiate that

after the release of detenus from judicial custody on

statutory/mandatory bail on 26.04.2022 and till the date of

passing of the impugned detention orders on 05.07.2022, the

detenus involved in any criminal activity. Under these

circumstances, the alleged criminal activities of the detenus, in

any event, would not satisfy the word 'goonda', as defined under Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

clause (g) of Section 2 of the Telangana Act 1 of 1986. In

R.Kalavathi's case (1 supra) relied by the learned counsel for

the petitioners, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the

word 'goonda' as contained in Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu

Preventive Detention Act (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), held as

follows:

"In order to attract action in terms of Section 3(1) of the Act, the detenu must be one who is a "Goonda" as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. Though in other preventive detention laws, even a single act which has the propensity of affecting even tempo of life and public tranquility would be sufficient for detention, being prejudicial to maintenance of public order. For the purpose of the Act the detenu has to be a "Goonda" as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act..."Goonda" means a person, who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offence, punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act XLV of 1860)... The expression "habitually" is very significant. A person is said to be a habitual criminal who by force of habit or inward disposition is accustomed to commit crimes. It implies commission of such crimes repeatedly or persistently and prima facie there should be continuity in the commission of those offences...The word 'habitually' does not refer to the frequency of the occasions but to the invariability of a practice and the habit has to be proved by totality of facts...From one single transaction though consisting of several acts, a habit cannot be attributed to a person."

Further, Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 is

pari materia to Section 2(g) of the Telangana Act 1 of 1986.

Thus, on this ground alone, the impugned orders of detention

passed against the detenus herein are liable to be set aside.

Point No.2:-

Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

9. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clearly

opined that there is a vast difference between "law and order"

and "public order". The offences committed against a particular

individual fall within the ambit of "law and order" and when the

public at large is adversely affected by the criminal activities of a

person, such activities of that person are said to disturb the

public order. Moreover, individual cases can be dealt with by

the criminal justice system. Therefore, there is no need for the

detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention

laws against an individual. Hence, according to the Hon'ble

Apex Court, the detaining authority should be wary of invoking

the immense power under the Act.

10. In Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar4, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has, in fact, deprecated the invoking of the

preventive law in order to tackle a law and order problem. It

was observed that every breach of public peace and every

violation of law may create a 'law and order' problem, but does

not necessarily create a problem of 'public order'. The distinction

has to be borne in mind in view of what has been stated in the

grounds of detention.

AIR 1966 SC 740 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

11. In Kanu Biswas v. State of West Bengal5, the Hon'ble

Apex Court, while discussing the meaning of word 'public order,'

held that the question whether a man has only committed a

breach of 'law and order' or has acted in a manner likely to

cause a disturbance of the 'public order', is a question of degree

and extent of the reach of the act upon the Society.

12. In a recent judgment in Banka Sneha Sheela Vs. State

of Telangana6, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

32. On the facts of this case, as has been pointed out by us, it is clear that at the highest, a possible apprehension of breach of law and order can be said to be made out if it is apprehended that the Detenue, if set free, will continue to cheat gullible persons. This may be a good ground to appeal against the bail orders granted and/or to cancel bail but certainly cannot provide the springboard to move under a preventive detention statute. We, therefore, quash the detention order on this ground..."

13. In another recent judgment in Mallada K Sri Ram Vs.

State of Telangana7, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while referring

to its earlier decisions in Banka Sneha Sheela's case (1

supra), Sama Aruna Vs. State of Telangana8 and Ram

Manohar Lohia Vs. State of Bihar9 held as follows:

"A mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is not sufficient to meet the standard of adversely affecting the "maintenance of public order....

the personal liberty of an accused cannot be sacrificed on the altar of preventive detention merely because a person is implicated in a criminal

(1972) 3 SCC 831

(2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 415

2022 SCC Online SC 424

(2018) 12 Supreme Court Cases 150

AIR 1966 SC 740 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

proceeding. The powers of preventive detention are exceptional and even draconian. Tracing their origin to the colonial era, they have been continued with strict constitutional safeguards against abuse. Article 22 of the Constitution was specifically inserted and extensively debated in the Constituent Assembly to ensure that the exceptional powers of preventive detention do not devolve into a draconian and arbitrary exercise of state authority. The case at hand is a clear example of non- application of mind to material circumstances having a bearing on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The two FIRs which were registered against the detenue are capable of being dealt by the ordinary course of criminal law."

14. In the instant cases, the detaining authority, basing on a

solitary crime indicated above, has passed the impugned

detention orders of the even date, dated 05.07.2022. We shall

present it in a tabular form the date of occurrence, the date of

registration of FIR, the offence complained of and its nature,

such as bailable/non-bailable or cognizable/non-cognizable.

                         Date of         Date of
Sl.                    Occurrence      registration
       Crime No.                                            Offence          Nature
No.                                       of FIR
                                                                       Sections 147
                                                                         & 148:
       22/2022 of                                       Sections 120B, Cognizable/
1.    Jagtial Rural    20.01.2022       20.01.2022      147, 148, 302    Bailable
      Police Station                                    r/w 149 of IPC Section 302:
                                                                       Cognizable/
                                                                       Non-bailable

15. As seen from the material placed on record, the solitary

crime relied upon by the detaining authority for preventively

detaining the detenus relate to murder of three persons in broad

day light at public place. The detenus were arrested in

connection with the said crime on 23.01.2022 and remanded to Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

judicial custody. Subsequently, the detenus moved three bail

petitions in the subject crime, which were dismissed by the

Court concerned. Thereafter, the detenus moved another

petition under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. in the solitary

crime relied by the detaining authority and the same were

allowed by the Court concerned, vide order, dated 26.04.2022

passed in Crl.M.P.No.173 of 2022, granting statutory/mandatory

bail to the detenu, on certain conditions. So, it appears that the

investigating officer had not completed investigation within the

stipulated period. Therefore, the detenu was granted

statutory/mandatory bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.

It is a grave omission on the part of the investigating officer in

not completing the investigation within the stipulated period.

The very purpose of enacting the Section 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.,

is to expedite the investigation, so that the valuable material

evidence is not lost and can be collected and produced before

the Court. For the laches on the part of the investigating officer,

it is not appropriate to invoke draconian preventive detention

laws against the detenus. The relief granted to the detenu

under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. cannot be scuttled by

invoking the preventive detention laws. Further, in the

statutory/mandatory bail order, conditions were imposed to the Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

effect that the detenus shall execute personal surety bonds for

Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the

satisfaction of the Court which granted conditional/statutory bail

and that the detenus shall report before the SHO, Jagtial Rural

Police Station, on every Sunday at any time between 10:00 AM

and 12:00 Noon for a period of two months from the date of

grant of statutory/mandatory bail or till filing of charge-sheet,

whichever is earlier. Thus, by virtue of the conditions imposed

in the statutory/mandatory bail orders, the detenus would be

under the surveillance of the Court and the police. The detenus

were granted statutory/mandatory bail under Section 167(2) of

Cr.P.C., on 26.04.2022 and the impugned detention orders were

passed on 05.07.2022. The detenus did not commit/attempt to

commit any criminal act after being released from judicial

custody. Under these circumstances, the apprehension of the

detaining authority that since the detenus were granted bail by

the Court concerned, there is imminent possibility of indulging in

similar offences, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of

public order and that the free movement of the detenus in the

society would disturb the public order and the even tempo of

public life and that their presence in the society is not in the

interest and safety of the society, unless they are prevented Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

from doing so by an appropriate order or detention, is highly

misplaced. Further, a mere apprehension of 'breach of law and

order' is not sufficient to meet the standard of adversely

affecting the 'maintenance of public order'. In the instant case,

if it is apprehended that the detenus, if set free, would continue

to indulge in similar offences, that may be a good ground to

appeal against the bail orders granted and/or to cancel bail, but

certainly cannot provide the springboard to move under the

preventive detention statute. Moreover, criminal law was

already set into motion against the detenus. Since the detenus

have allegedly committed offence punishable under the Indian

Penal Code, the said crime can be effectively dealt with under

the provisions of the Penal Code and there was no need for the

detaining authority to invoke draconian preventive detention

laws. The subject cases do not fall within the ambit of the words

"public order" or "disturbance of public order". Instead, they fall

within the scope of the words "law and order". Hence, there

was no need for the detaining authority to pass the impugned

detention order. Under these circumstances, the subjective

satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in detaining the

detenus can be said to be tainted with malice. The personal

liberty of an accused cannot be sacrificed on the altar of Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

preventive detention, merely because a person is implicated in a

criminal proceeding. Article 22 of the Constitution was

specifically inserted and extensively debated in the Constituent

Assembly to ensure that the exceptional powers of preventive

detention do not devolve into a draconian and arbitrary exercise

of state authority. 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 detenus under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. The detaining authority cannot be

permitted to subvert, supplant, or substitute the punitive law of

land, by ready resort to preventive detention.

16. Further, as held in Vijay Narain Singh v. State of

Bihar10, a single act or omission cannot be characterized as a

habitual act because, the idea of 'habit' involves an element of

persistence and a tendency to commit or repeat similar offences,

which is patently not present in the instant case. In view of the

facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case to apply

the preventive detention laws and detain the detenus, curtailing

the liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India.

(1984) 3 SCC 14 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

17. We have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Abdul Sattar Ibrahim Manik's case (3 supra) relied

by the learned Special Government Pleader. In Paragraph 12(5)

of the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

"When the detaining authority has merely referred to them in the narration of events and has not relied upon them, failure to supply bail application and order refusing bail will not cause any prejudice to the detenu in making an effective representation. Only when the detaining authority has not only referred to, but also relied upon them in arriving at the necessary satisfaction then failure to supply these documents, may, in certain cases, depending upon the facts and circumstances, amount to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Whether in a given case the detaining authority has casually or passingly referred to these documents or also relied upon them depends upon the facts and the grounds, which aspect can be examined by the Court."

Here, in the instant case, this Court is of the view that the

alleged illegal activities of the detenus would not fall under the

word 'Goonda' as defined under Section 2(g) of the Telangana

Act 1 of 1986 and that the accusations against the detenus

would not amount to "disturbance of public order" and are

confined within the ambit and scope of words "law and order"

and that they can be effectively dealt with under the provisions

of the Penal Code and there was no need for the detaining

authority to invoke draconian preventive detention laws.

Further, the relief granted to the detenu under Section

167(2)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. cannot be scuttled by invoking the Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

provisions of Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the preventive detention

laws. Therefore, the cited decision is distinguishable from the

case on hand and the same is not helpful to the

respondents/State.

18. Before parting, it is apposite to observe that personal

liberty is of the widest amplitude, covering a variety of rights.

Its deprivation shall only be in accordance with the procedure

prescribed by law, conformable to the mandate of the Supreme

Law, i.e., the Constitution, more particularly, Article 21 thereof.

Of all fundamental rights granted to the citizens under the

Constitution, the right of personal liberty is the most cherished.

A person is not to be deprived of this right, except in accordance

with the procedure laid down by law, even if he is a man of the

most desperate character. Preventive detention is a serious

invasion into the personal liberty of a person and as such, the

safeguards provided to a person under the Constitution against

the improper exercise of the power, must be jealously watched

and enforced by the Court. Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution

of India, which permits preventive detention, is an exception to

Article 21 of the Constitution. An exception cannot, ordinarily,

nullify the full force of the main rule, i.e., right to liberty Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. An exception

can apply only in rare cases. The law of preventive detention

can only be justified by striking the right balance between

individual liberty on the one hand and the needs of an orderly

society on the other. The power of preventive detention is a

frightful power with drastic consequences, affecting personal

liberty, which is the most cherished and prized possession of

man in a civilized society. The said power has to be exercised

with the greatest care and caution, and it is the duty of the

Courts to ensure that this power is not abused or misused. To

prevent misuse of this potentially dangerous power, the law of

preventive detention has to be strictly construed and meticulous

compliance with the procedural safeguards, however technical,

is mandatory and vital.

19. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders are legally

unsustainable and are liable to be set aside.

20. In the result, the Writ Petitions are allowed. The

impugned detention orders of the even date, dated 05.07.2022,

passed by the respondent No.2-Collector and District Magistrate,

Jagtial District, vide Rc.No.C1/724-1/2022, Rc.No.C1/724-

5/2022, Rc.No.C1/724-3/2022, Rc.No.C1/724-2/2022 and Dr.SA, J & EVV, J WP Nos.31745/2022 & batch

Rc.No.C1/724-4/2022 respectively, and the consequential

confirmation orders of the even date, dated 06.09.2022, passed

by the Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl.

(Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana, vide

G.O.Rt.Nos.1702, 1706, 1704, 1703 and 1705 respectively, are

set aside. The respondents are directed to set the detenus,

namely, Kandela Srinivas, S/o. Gangaiah; Vanam Shekhar, S/o.

Nagaiah; Vanam @ Kedari Durgaiah @ Chinna Durgaiah,

S/o.Pochaiah; Vanam Chinna Gangaiah, S/o. Pochaiahl; and

Vanam Durgaiah @ Durga Prasad, S/o. Pochaiah, at liberty

forthwith, if they are no longer required in any case.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these writ

petitions, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to

costs.

___________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J

_______________ E.V.VENUGOPAL , J

11th October, 2022 Note:

Mark LR Copy.

(B/O) BVV