WP/28861/2021 of Sanjeeva Vs The State of Telangana on 30 December 2021

ORDER

WP.No.28861 of 2021

ALLOWING THE WPWITHOUT COSTS.

vx\{*

a

."1nESTA,J(r(ooo2 6 [FEB]2422a*:

\\.P.N0.28000 [()Ir ]2021

ORDR {l'rr rlre llor'hle[sri.hrslice A.ll:|inshe][ Lo'. ][It(ddt ][)]

The 2*r respondent - Commissioner [of ][Police ][Cyberabad]Commissioneratg [vide ][proceedings ][No. ][I ][32/PD-CELLOI ][CYBl202l ][dated]13.08.2021 ordered for [detention ][of ][detenu ][- Golkonda Raju ][s/o ][Isthari, ][and]the said order of detentiolr [was ][approved ][by ][the ][Government ][vide]C.O.Rt.No.l9l3. Gcneral [Adnrinistratron ][(Spl. ][(L ][& ][O) ][Department ][dated]24.08.2021 ancl subsequently [confirmcd ][by ][the ][l" ][respondent ][vide]C.O.ltt.No.2424. General [Administration ][(Spl. ][L ][& ][O) ][Depanment ][dated]03.11.2021. Assailingthe [ortler ][of ][dctcntion, the ][wife ][of ][the detenu ][filed ][the]rvrit petition oti behalf ol'the [dctenu.]

2. I'he sponsoring authority [placed material before ][the ][detaining]autliority stating that [the ][dctenu ][Golkonda Raju ][s/o ][Isthari, ][is ][involved ][in]vehicle pollution checking, [and that ][he is ][preparing ][fake ][insurance ][of]vehicles in the narre of [prominent ][authorised ][insurance companies ][in ][an]organized way in [the limits ][of ][Cyberabad ][Police ][Commissionerate ][and]eaming money illegally [from ][the ][innocent people, ][who ][come ][to him ][for]pollution checking certificate, [and ][in ][this ][regard three ][crimes ][have ][been]registered against [the ][detenu ][in ][Cr.Nos.2, ][8 and ][6 ][of ][2021 on the ][file of ][RGI]Air Porl Police [Station ][all ][under ][Sections ][419,420,468,471read with ][34]IPC.Itwasalsobroughttothenoticeofthedetainingauthoritythatinallthe three crimes, [bails ][rvere granted ][to ][the ][detenu ][and he was ][released ][on]29.01.2021 . [Consiclering ][the rnaterial submitted ][by ][the ][sponsoring ][authority']the detaining [authority found ][that ][the ][detenu ][is ][a'fake ][document ][offender']

as defined under Section clause [(p) ]of Section [2 ]of [the ][Telangana Prevention]of Dangerous Activities of Bottleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Ot'fenders, Goondas,Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Crabbers, Spurious Seed Oifbnders,Insecticide Ofl'enders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Ot'fenders,Fake Document Offenders, Sexual Otfenders, [xplosive SubstancosOffenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Ollbnders and White Collar orFinancial Offenders Act, 1 986 (Act No. I ol 1986). and that his activities areaffecting the economy ol the Statc, other than crcating disturbance of publicorder, and that ordinary law of the Iand rvould not be sutficient to curb hisactivities unless the preventive detention laws are invoked, and accordinglyrecording his subjective satisihction, ordered tbr the detention of the detenu,and the same was confirmed by the I [*' ]respondent vide C.O.Rt.No.2424dated 03.11.2021.

3. Smt. B.Mohana Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner, submitsthat the allegations against the detenu in the three crimes relied on by thedetaining authority pertain to cheating or criminal breach of trust, and theymay affect 'law and order', but they cannot be said to affcct 'public order',because such acts affect only specific individuals and no public at large isaffected, and, thereibre, invoking tlie preventive dctention law is notwarranted and they can be dealt with the criminal law.

3.1. That in all the three crimes registered against the cletenu, bailswere granted and he was released on 29.01.2021 and alier release liorr jailhe is not involved in any crinre, and lie has also not violated any bailconditions, but the detaining authority rvithout considcring the same, passedthe order of detention after a period olabout seven months on 13.0g.2021considering stale, irrelevant and non-existing grounds.

3.2. l'hat ordinary larv [rvas ]already invoked [against the detenu ][to ][curb]his alleged illegal activities, and again [invoking the ][preventive ][detention]law, as an alternative ntethod, [is ][nothing but ][abuse ][of ][process ][of ][law.]

3.3. Learned counsel [also ][relied on ][the orders ][passed ][by ][this court ][in]W.P.No.l756(r of 2020 and batch [dated ][01.02.2021, ][W.P.No.8985 ][of ][2019]dated 18.07.2019 [and ][W.P.No.(1464 ][of ][2020 ][dated ][18.06.2020 and also ][the]fudgment [of ][the Apex ][Cou( in ][BANKA SNEHA ][SHEELA ][vs' ][THE]STATE OF TELANGANAI

3.4 That as the [impugned ][order ][has been passed ][without ][application]of rnind the same [may ][tre set aside.]

4. On the other hatrd learned [Assistant Covemment ][Pleader ][for ][Home]subnrits that detettu is [prellaring fhkc vehicle ][insurances and ][providing ][the]same to innoccnt [people and ][collecling ][money ][in ][a deceptive manner ][and]that this will not only [aI'tect ][the ][economy ][of ][the ][State, ][but ][also ][create]disturbance to [public ][orclet, ][antl that ][three crimes ][have ][been ][registered]against the dctenu lbr the [said olfences ][in ][a ][quick ][succession. ][Therefore,]considering the entire [material submitted ][by ][the ][sponsoring ][authority, ][the]detaining autholity [found ][that the detenu is ][a'fake ][document ][offender', ][and]that his activities are [prejudicial to ][the ][maintenance ][of ][public ][order, ][and ][that]ordinary law will not [be ][sufficient ][to ][curb ][his ][activities ][unless preventive]detention statute is [invoked' ][and ][accordingly recording ][his ][subjective]satisfaction, [passed ][tlie ][irnpugned ][order ][of ][detention, ][and ][the ][Advisory]Board, on re-appreciation [of ][facts ][confirmed ][the ][same ][Therefore' ][this ][court]

r Crimioal Appeal No 73 j of l0l I ( Arising our of St.P (Criminal) No [.4'129 ][ol202l ][dated ][02 08 ][2021]

may not interfere with the impugned order ol detentiotr. Accordingly, [he]sough tbr disrnissal ol the writ petition.

5. ln view of the rival contentions, the issue that arises tbr ourconsideration is - whether the impugned order 01'dctention confirmed by thefirst respondent, is liable to be set aside'l

6. Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to note thedistinction between the 'law and order' and ['public ]order', as held by theApex Court. In the case of Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Biha/, theHon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

54. We have here a case of detention under Rule 30 of the Dcfence ofIndia Rules which permits apprehension and dcterltjon o1'a person likcly to actin a manner prejudicial to the maintenrurce olpublic order. lt fbllows that ifsuch a person is not detained public disordcr is thc apprchcnded rcsult. Disorderis no doubt prevented by tlre maintenance of larv and ordcr also but disordcr is abroad spectrum rvhich includes at one cnd srnall distLrrbances and at the othcrtlre most serious and cataclysmic happclings. Docs the exprcssion "publicorder' takc in evcry kind ofdisorders or only sr.rrnc of tltcnll ['lhe ]answcr to tltisserves to distinguish "public order" fiom "larv antl orrlcr" bccause thc lattcrundoubtcdly takcs in all ol thenl. I'ublic ordcr il disturbcrl. nrust lcird ro publicdisorder. Every breach ofthc pcacc does nol lcld l() ltublic rlisrrr.tlcr. Wltqn trvrrdrunkards cluarrel attd fight thcre is tlisolrlcl but not puhlic disordur'. Iltc),uanbe dealt with under the po\\,cls to ntaiutilin llrv und ordcr but cannot be dctaincdon thc grouml that they wcre dislurbing qrublic o|tlcr. :iLr|pr)sc lltal tllc t\\ofighters wcre of rival contrnunities and one ol thcrrr triccl to rilisc culrmunalpassions.-fhe probleur is still olri of la$ and olclcl irtrl it raiscs thc altprchcnsiorrof public disordcr. Other cxarnples can bc rrnagiled. I hc contrxvcltion of lawalways aft'ects ordcr but bcfi)re it can be suid t() atlcct public or(lcr. ll ntustaffLct thc courrrunity or thc publie ut llrgc, A rlcrc disturlrancc ol linl antlordcr leading to disordcr is lllus u()t ncccssur.ill. sullicielt jirl uctlon under thcDelcnce of India Acl but disturbanecs rvhr,.h suhvcr.t tltc Putrlir t'rdcr arc. ADistrict Magistrate is entillcd to takc action unrler llulc..t0( I)(b) to prcvellrsubvcrsion ofpublic ordcr bur not in irrrl ol'rrruintcrr.rrrcc L,l i.rs irIltl rrr.cler unclcrordinary circurnstances.

7. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Coun in ARL\N GHOSH y.STATE OF BENGALT , analyzed the legal position in this regard as under:

horvevcr nruch onc nray tlislike thc act. Take another casc of a town where thereis commurral tensir)n. A ll]an stabs a rnerubcr of the othcr community. This is anact of a very diU'ercnt sort. Ils implications arc deeper and it affects the eventcmpo of life and puhlic ordcr is jcopardizcd because the repercussions of theact cnbracc large Scc{ions ot thc conrmunity and incite them to lnake furtlterbreaches ofthc llu ar-d oldcr and to subvert the public order. An act by itselfisnot detenninant ot its orvn gravity. In its quality it may not dift'er t'ror:r anotherbLrt in its potentia)ity il ml-y bc vcry dit'ttrent. Takc the case ofassault on girls.A guest at a hotcl nray kiss or nrakc advances to halla dozen chamber maids.He rnay anntlv thcnr and also tltc managelncnt but he does not cause disturbanceol public rrrrler. llc nrav cvcu hlre a tiacas u'itlr thc fiiends ofone of the girlsbul cvcn then it rvould bc a casc ofbreaclr ol larv aud order only. Take anothercase ol'a nrln [qht: ]urolcsts rvtrrncn in lonely placcs. As a result of his cctivitiesgirls going 10 collcgcs ancl sclrools ilrc in constatrt danger and fcar. Wonrengoing lirr thcir ordirrary business are atiaid ofbcing rvaylaid and assaulted. Theactivity of this nran in ils csscntirl quality is not different tiom thc act of theothcr nran but in its potcntillity irnd in its afi'cct upon thc public tranquility thercis a vast dillercnce. l he act of the mar who molests the girls in lonely placescauscs a dislurbance in lhe cvcn lenrpo of living which is the first requiremento1'pub)ic orcler. llc disturbs the socicty alld the community. FIis act makes alltlrc won'ron apprehcnsivc o1'thcir honour and he car be said to be causingdisturbance olpublic order and not nrerely comnritting individual actions whichmuy bc takeD note ol bv the criminal prosecution agencies. It means thereforethat the question whethcl a man has only committed a breach of law and orderor has actcd in a manner likcly to cause a disturbance of the public order is aquestion of dcgrcc and the extent of thc breach of the act upon the society. TheFrench distinguish law and ordcr and [public ]order by designating the latter [as]order publique. ['fhc ]Iatter expression has been recognised as meaningsometlli[g rnorc tl]an oldinary rnajntcnaDce of law and ordcr. JusticeRamasrvarni in writ Petition No. I 79 of 1968 drew a line of demarcationbctrveen the serious and aggravated tirnrs of breaches of [public ]order whichalfcct the communitl or cndangcr the [public ]intercst at large fronr rninorbreaches of peacc Nhich do not aitcct thc [pLrblic ]at large. He drerv an analogybetwecn public and privalc critncs. [-fhe ]analogv is useful but not to be [pushed]too thr. A large numhet ol ucts rlircctcd against [persons ]or individuals may [total]up into l hrcach ofpuhlic ortlcr. In I)r. Iiatr Manohar Lohia's [case ][cxamplcs]u,erc givcn br- Surkirr. and Hidll'atullah. JJ. [-l'hey ]shorv how similar acts indit'fcrent conlcxts:rltecl dilterenlly larv arrd order or1 the [one ]hand and [pubJic]order on thc [()rhcr. ]ll is:rl*avs ir [qLrcstion ]of'dcgrec of the hann and [its allect]Ltpou the corrmunily. I hc [qucstion ]to ask is: Docs it leacl to disturbance of tltecurrent of Iitc ol the ctrnrmunil)' s() us t(r all()urlt a clisturbancc of thc puhlicordcr or clocs it aflcct rrclcll'arr intlitidual leaving the tranquility olthe socictyundisturl)e(ll This question has 1o be iaced in cvcry case on facts. There is noformula hy u hich {rnc clsc can bc distinguished [from ]another."

8. ln Commr, Ol' Poticc r', C.Anitat, the Apex Court exanrining the issue of ["putrlic ]order" arld [''larv ]and order". [held ][as ][under:]

Issues

"? ....The erucial issue is whether the activitios of the [detenu were]prejudicial to public order. [While ][the expression ]["law ][and ][order" is ][wider ][in]icope inntnluJl ai contravcntioll [of ][iaw ][always affccts order, ]["public ][order"]has a nanorver arnbit, [and ][public ][order couid ][be ][affected ][by ][only ][such]contraventioD [which aliects ][thc ][community or ][the ][public ][at ][large ][Public ][order]is the even tempo [of ][lif'e ][of ][1he ][cortmunity ][taking the country ][as a ][whole or]eren a specified locality. [The ][distinction ][between the ][areas ][of ]["law ][and ][order"]and "public [order' is ][otle ][of ][the degree and extent ][of ][the reach ][of ][the act ][in]

question ol'l society. lt is thc [potcntiality ][ol'thc ][act ][to disturi) ][tllc ][cvcn ][tcnpo ][oi]lite of rtre corlurunity [which ][ttrakcs ][it ][plejtrdiciul to ][tllc ][rlr ][ir'ltcnunce ][ol ][thc]public ortler. lf a co[traventioo [jn ][its ][el]cct ][is ][conlinecl ][only ][to ][a ][1'e\\']individuals dircctly [involved ][as ][dislirct ][fronr ][a ][widc ][spcctrut:r ][of ][the ][public. ][it]coukl raise problem of [law ][antl ordcr ][only. ][lt ][is lhc ][lcngtll. ][l:tagnitudc ][and]intensity of ihe terror [wave ][unleashed ][by ][a ][particular cruption ][of ][disordel ][tllat]helps to distinguish it [as ][an act atl'ecting ]["public ][ordcr" tlom ][that ][concelnitrg]"law and order". The [queslion to ][ask ][is:]"Does it [lead ]to [disturbancc ][of ][thc ][current ][life ][of ][the ][comllunity ][so ][as to]amoult to a disturbance of [the ][public ][order ][or ][does ][it ][afl'ect ][rrerely ][an]individual leaving the tranquillity [ofthe ][society undisturbed?"]This question has [tr.r ]be t'aced [in evcry ][casc ][on its facts ]["]

9. Prom the above [judgments ]oi [Apex Court ][it ][is ][clear ][that ][if ][the]criminal acts alleged against the [detenl ][disturbs ][the ][current ][life ][of ][the]community, leading to [disturbance ][ofthe ][public ][order, or ][the ][potential ][of ][the]act disturbs even the tempo of [lit'e ][of ][the ][colnmunity, ][which ][makes ][it]prejudicial to the maintenance ol ['public ]order', then the [authority ][is]justilied in passing the order ol detcntion under thc provisions of the ActNo.l of 1986. On the other [hancl, ][if ]the [critninal activilies ][alleged ][against]the detenu lnerely af-fects an individual, [leaving thc ][traniluility ol'the ][society]undisturbed, or that the contraventioll [allcged against ][lhe ][detenu, ][is ][confined]only to a few individuals directly involved. [as ]distinct [1'lorn ][a ][rvidc spectrum]of public, it has to be considered only as ['larv ]and ortler' problelr, and [there]is no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian prevenlivedetention laws against an individual, fbl invoking such laws, wouldadversely affect the fundamental rights olpersonal liberty which is protectedand promoted by Article 2l of the Constitution of lndia. Hence, accordingto the Hon'ble Apex Court, the detaining authority should be wary ofinvoking the immense power under the preventive detention law.

10. The allegations against the detenu is that he is preparing takeinsurances of the vehicles in tlie nanre of prominent insurance corrpaniesand cheating the innocent people and therefbre three crimes, referred to above, have been registered against the detenu, all under Sections 41g,420,468,4'71read with 34 IpC i.e., they pertain to cheating, committed againstparticular individuals, and hence no inference of disturbance to public ordercan be drawn and they can bc tried under tlie normal criminal laws.

I L This court in W.P.No.8985 of 20 | 9 dated I g.07.2019 held asunder:under:

"Crave as lhc oi'fcnccs ntav be, thcy relate to cheating and criminalbreach of trust. So. no inl'erencc oi disturbiincc of public ordcical be drawn.Thcsc cascs can hc tlicrl untlcr thc normal crirninal law. Hcnce, tlrere was noneed for the detrining uthority to pass the detentiol1 order."

J2. [-l'he ]Apcx Court in Banka Sncha Sheela ( I supra), helcl as under:

"2.1. On the lircts of the case, as Jras been pointed out by us, it is clearthat at thc highcst. a possible apprchension of breach of larv and order can besaid to bc rnade our il it is apprchended that thc Detenu, ifset fiee, rvill continueb cheat guillible pcrsons. This may be a good ground to appeal against the bailorders granlcd and/or to canccl bail but cenainly cannot provide tlte springboardto move under a preveltive detention statute, We, therefore, quash thedetention order on lhis gt'ound."

13. Having regard to the allegations against the detenu herein, and the law laid down in the above decisions, it is clear that such allegations fallwithin the domain of 'larv and order', as they affect specific individuals andno disturbance to public order is involvecl. and they can be dealt with underthe criminal larv and thcre is no .justitication in invoking the preventivedetention law.

14. Apart liom the above it could be [seen ][that the ][detenu ][was]released on bail on 29.01.2021 [and ][no ][material ][is ][produced ][by ][the]sponsoring authority to show [that ][tlle ][detenu ][after ][release ][liom ][jail ][was]involved in any crinre or that [he ][has ][violated any ][bail ][conditions' ][But ][the]detaining authority [passed ][the ][order ][of ][detention ][on ][13.08'2021 ][after ][a]

period of seven [months ][taking ][into ][consideration, ][stale' irrelevant ][and non-]existing [ground. ][Assuming that ][detenu ][has ][commitled ][any ][crimes ][ol ][similar]nature, or violated [any ][bail ][conditions, ][it ][was ][always open ][for ][the]officers [to ][bring ][the ][same ][to ][the ][notice ][of ][the ][Public ][Prosecutor]investigating and seek for cancellation [of ][bail, but ][they ][cannot ][invoke the ][preventive]detention statute [as an ][alternative ][to ][incarcerate the detenu, and ][this ][amounts]to abuse ofprocess of [law.]

15. ln sirnilar circumstanccs. [a ][Division ][Bench ][ol' this ][court ][ln]W.P.No. I 7566 of [2020 ][dated ][0l ][.02.202 ][I ][heid ][as unclcr]

"12. A barc pcrusal of thc [ilnpugtrcd dctctllitrrt orrlcts ][clclrll' ][t'evcills]that the detcnus [,ueic ][grantcd ][bail ][in ][all ][tltc ][itlirrcsaitl ][tlrrcc ctimcs ][by]26.03.2020. There [is no ][allegation that ][ulicl ][relcitsc ][t'n ][baii ][in ][thc ][alirrcsaid]crimss, thc detenus [have ][inrolvcd ][in ][any ][critnc or crinrinai ][acti'/itv ][-I ][hcre ][was]no atternpts or colnmission [of ][tltc ][ol't'cnccs ][of ][thc ][naturc ][iirr ][u'hich ][thc ][detcnus]are being prosccuted. [Cravc ][lls thc ollcncc ][nlal ][bc ][it ][lrns bectr cotrltnitted]agaiflst [p"articular ]individuals [So. ][no ][iniercncc ][ol ][tlisturbancc ][ol ][pubic otdcr]Tho "i, [be ]cletsntion [,irarun. ][orders ][The itlstant ][rvere ][passr:<l ][cilscs ][otr 0? ][cilll ][bc ][03'1020 i ][ttied ][undcr thc tttrmlal ][c'' ][rlicr ][iirul ][ttlonths atier ][criminal ][iatv][the]relcase of the detenus [on ][bail. ][As ][per ][tlte ][subtttissiorls rnatle ][on bchall ][ofthc]petitionc6/dctenus, bails [wcrc ][grantctl ][otr ][certain coutlitious arrd ][tl'tosc]conditions [were ]not [violalcd by lhe ][rletenus ][Uudcr ][thcsc circulnstatrccs- thcre]was no nced for the dctaining [authority k) ][pass ][thc ][irnpugncd detention orders']The impugned detention orders [of ][cvel ][date. datcd 07 ][08.2020. ][sufler ][liorn ][non-]appticaiion of mind. Therefbre, [for ][thc ][reasons statcd above, ][the ][intpugrled]ditention orders and thc consequential [confimration ][ordels ][ate ][legally]unsustainable.

16. Another Division Bench o1'this coun in W.P.No.(1464 of [2020 ][dated]

18.06.2020 held as under

"10. The detaining authority has b keqr in miud that thc order ofdctention nceds to bc passed as an extreme step wheu all other legal remcdiesand avenues are exhausted. Thc dctcnu rvas involv!'rl in ollinces ofcheatirrgand breach oftrust. The dctcnu arrcstcd and rclcuscd on conditional bails inthree crimes relbrred to above. Evcn ifcondition ofappearance is imposed untilliling ofchargc shect. thc dctenu will bc undcr thc sr,rrreillancc o1'lhc concemcdcoun and police. When trial is comnrcnccd. alicr liling ol the charge shcet, thedetcnu will be under thc surveillance of thc cor':ccnrcd Ceult anc{ policc. Whentrial is comncnced, aficr liling of thc chalgc shccl. tllc [(let!'ltu ]hils to regularll,appear befbrc the Coun. lf the detcnu is ibund to bc involvcd in sintilar crimcsor there is violation of bail conditions, the concerncd police or PublicProsccutor can {'ilc an application secking cancellalion ofbail. Hencc. rvithoutresolting to such steps, it rnay not lre cxpectcd ol'thc detuinilg authoritl to passtlre detention order as an casy route mcntioncd."

17. In vierv of the above, the impugned detention order and theconsequential Govemment orders cannot be sustained, and they are liable tobe set aside and the issue frarned is answered in the affirmative.

18. For the loregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and theorder of detention passed by the 2"d respondent - Commissioner of Police,Cyberabad Comrrl [jssionerate, ]vide No. 132/PD-CELL/CYB1202| datedI 3.08.2021 , and the consequential G.O.Rt.No.l9l3, G.A. (Spl. (L & O),Department dated 24.08.2021 issued by the Government approving the orderol detention, and G.O.Rt- No.2424, General Adminish'ation (Spl. L & O)Depafiment dated 0--1.11.2021 passed by the l" respondent confirming thesame, are hereby set aside and the detenu - Golkonda Raju s/o Isthari, shallbe set at Iiberty lorthrvith, il'not required in any other case.

19. Interlocutory applications pending, ifany, shall stand closed. Noorder as to costs ,\.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J

IVI.I,AXMAN,J

DATE:06- [1 ][2--'201 ][I]avs