Telangana High CourtDilkule Digambar vs The State Of Ts on 15 June, 2018HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

                                    AND

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD


                  WRIT PETITION No. 8911 of 2018


ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)1)   The present writ petition came to be filed underArticle 226of

the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of writ of habeas corpus

directing the respondents to produce Suraj Pandith Gunjal, S/o.

Pandith Govind Gunjal, before this Court and declare his detention

vide order dated 08.12.2017 in C.No.170/D1/CCRB-LMM/2017, as

confirmed    by   the     Government       vide    G.O.Rt.No.133,    dated

18.01.2018, as illegal and unconstitutional.2)   By an order dated 08.12.2017, the Commissioner of Police,

Khammam (second respondent herein) passed an order of

detention detaining the detenue 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,    Forest

Offenders,    Gaming      Offenders,      Sexual    Offenders,    Explosive

Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and

White Collar or Financial offenders Act, 1986 (for short "the Act")

as amended in Telangana Ordinance No.3 of 2017 on the ground

that the detenue is a 'goonda" within the meaning of clause (g) of2Section 2 of the Act and with a view to prevent him from acting in

any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.3)   The grounds of detention furnished to the detenue, refer to

four instances. The first instance is in respect of Crime No.111 of

2017 of Khammam I Town Police Station, registered for an offence

punishable underSection 379IPC.      The allegations in the said

report relates to an incident which took place on 27.05.2017. It is

said that on that day while the informant therein was boarding the

bus to go to her native place, some unknown offender committed

theft of her purse containing cash of Rs.45,400/-. It is said that on

07.10.2017 the detenue was arrested while he was moving on

suspicious circumstances. On interrogation, he is alleged to have

admitted to have committed the offence in crime No.190 of 2017

as well. Basing on his confession he was arrested.4)   The second incident is said to have taken place on 19.06.2017,

on which date at about 11.00 a.m., while the informant therein

along with her husband went to gold shop in Khammam to sell the

gold items. While the shop owners refused to purchase the gold

item, she said to have kept the same in her purse. At about 4.30

p.m., she came to the bus stand to purchase some fruits and paid

money to the vendor. While she was entering the bus she found

her purse along with gold ornaments missing. On 07.10.2017 the

detenue was arrested, wherein he is alleged to have confessed

about the commission of offence. In respect of the above incident,3a case in Crime No.130 of 2017 of Khammam I Town Police Station,

came to be registered.5)   The third incident is in relation to Crime No.179 of 2017 of

Khammam I Town Police Station, which took place on 18.08.2017.

The said case was also registered for an offence punishable underSection 379IPC. The arrest of the detenue in the said crime was

also shown on 07.10.2017.6)   The last incident relates to Crime No.190 of 2017 of

Khammam I Town Police Station, registered for the offences

punishable underSections 356and379IPC.       It is said that on

12.09.2017 one Manneti Nageswara Rao, lodged a report stating

that on that day his wife Sravanthi came to Khammam for

purchasing cloths to their children. While she was proceeding to

the cloth shop at Kaman Bazar, one unknown offender came

behind her and snatched away a gold chain weighing about 1 ½

tolas from her neck. In the said case the detenue was arrested on

07.10.2017, while he was moving under suspicious circumstances.

On interrogation, he is alleged to have revealed his name and also

confessed about the commission of offence.7)   The detenue moved bail applications in the above crimes

which were dismissed on earlier occasions and as on the date of

passing of the detention order the bail applications moved for third

time are pending consideration. It was specifically stated in the

order and also in the grounds of detention that there is every

likelihood of detenue being released on bail in the crimes as the4bail applications filed by him are pending consideration and if he is

released on bail there is every possibility of he indulging in

activities which are similar in nature. Having regard to the above,

the second respondent herein passed the order of detention on

08.12.2017.         The said order of detention was approved by the

Government under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act vide

G.O.Rt.No.2590, G.A. (Spl.(Law & Order) Department, dated

18.12.2017.             The Advisory Board which was constituted under

Section 9 of the Act, revised the case of detenue on 18.01.2018,

and after hearing the detenue and his paternal aunt and uncle,

opined that there was sufficient cause for detention of the

detenue. After considering the report of the advisory board and

the material available on record, the Government, in exercise of

powers confessed under sub-section (1) ofSection 12read with

Section 13 of the Act, confirmed the order of detention made by

the second respondent, as approved by the Government earlier and

directed detention of the detenue for a period of 12 months from

the date of his detention. Challenging the same, the present writ

petition came to be filed.8)      The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that passing of the detention order for a period of 12

months at a stretch, is contrary to the provisions of law.         He

placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court inCherukuri

Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradeshand

others1 in support of his plea.1(2015) 13 SCC 72259)       A counter came to be filed opposing the pleas taken in the

writ petition.           It is specifically urged by the learned Advocate-

General that in view of the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court

inAravind Choudhary v. State of Telanganaand another2

decided on 08.03.2017, which was based on a Three Judge Bench

judgment of the Apex Court inT.Devaki v. Government of Tamil

Naduand others3, the order passed by the Government detaining

the detenue for a period of 12 months cannot be found fault with.10) As seen from the judgment placed before this Court, the

learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied uponCherukuri

Mani's case (1 supra), which was decided on 08.05.2014. Para

No.16 ofthe said judgmentreads as under:"Normally, a person who is detained under the provisions of
           the Act is without facing trial which in other words
           amounts to curtailment of his liberties and denial of civil
           rights. In such cases, whether continuous detention of such
           person is necessary or not, is to be assessed and reviewed
           from time to time. Taking into consideration these factors,
           the Legislature has specifically provided the mechanism
           "Advisory Board" to review the detention of a person.
           Passing a detention order for a period of twelve months at
           a stretch, without proper review, is deterrent to the rights
           of the detenu.        Hence, the impugned Government Order
           directing detention for the maximum period of twelve
           months straightaway cannot be sustained in law."11) But the Advocate-General placed on record the judgment of

the Apex Court inAravind Choudhary(2 supra), inter alia2Crl.A.No.924 of 2017 (Spl.L.P.(Crl.) No.3646 of 2017)3(1990) 2 SCC 4566contending that mentioning the maximum period of detention in

the order does not vitiate the detention order.12) It would be also relevant here to refer to the three Judge

Bench Judgment of the Apex Court inT.Devai vs. Government of

Tamil Nadu(3 supra). It was a case where, T.Devaki, wife of the

detenu, filed the above writ petition challenging the validity of

the Detention Order dated 15.8.1989 passed against her husband

by the Collector and District Magistrate of       Kamarajar District

Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu on     the allegation inter alia that the

District Magistrate had issued the impugned order for detention

of her husband, who is an active member of the All India Anna

Drayida Munnetra Kazhagam party, an active social and political

worker and ex-member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, at

the behest of Respondent No. 3-a Minister of the present DMK

Government, on account of personal and political animosity

between the two. The petitioner therein has referred to number

of incidents and to the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Legislative

Assembly in support of her submission that there was political and

personal animosity between the aforesaid Minister and her husband

and the order of detention was made mala fide at the instance of

the Minister, respondent No. 3 therein. The allegation against the

detenue therein was that while a Seminar was going on, the

detenue incited his men saying "Finish Durai Murgan's Chapter

today" and so saying that he threw a dagger aiming at Thiru Durai

Murgan, Minister but the dagger missed the target and fell down on

the stage. Thereafter, the detenu took out a bottle containing7petrol and a matchbox out of a hand bag which he carried in his

hand. Meanwhile, the Sub-Inspector of Police, caught hold of the

detenue, seized the bottle and the matchbox. It is further stated

that the detenue and those who accompanied him attempted to

attack the Minister with knives in their hands but they were

overpowered by the Police and the members of police. As a result

of the incident those present in the hall panicked and got scared

and       ran     helter-skelter,         causing   obstruction    to     traffic   on

Aruppukottai Road. The Seminar also came to an halt for a while.

The detention order further states that the detenu by committing

the aforesaid grave offence in public, in broad day light created a

sense of alarm, scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the

public of the area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the

maintenance of the public order. His unlawful, disorderly and

dangerous          activities      on     27.7.89     were    prejudicial    to     the

maintenance of public order which affected the even tempo of life

of the community.13) The said case came up before a Bench of three Judges, in

view        of   the        conflicting   decisions    of    the   Apex     Court    inCommissioner of Police v. Gurbuz Anandram Bhiryani4andAshok Kumar v. Delhi Administration5, on the question of validity

of detention order when there is a failure to specify the period of

detention. After considering the provisions of the Act, the Apex

Court observed as under:4(1988) SCC (Crl.) 9145(1982) SCC (Crl.) 4518"The expression "the State Government are satisfied that it
      is necessary so to do, they may, by order in writing direct
      that during such period as may be specified in the order"occurring in sub-section (2) ofSection 3relates to the
      period for which the order of delegation issued by the State
      Government is to remain in force and it has no relevant to
      the period of detention. The Legislature has taken care to
      entrust the power of detention to the State Government,
      as the detention without trial is a serious encroachment on
      the fundamental right of a citizen, it has taken further care
      to avoid a blanket delegation of power, to subordinate
      authorities for an indefinite period by providing that the
      delegation in the initial instance will not exceed for a
      period of three months and it shall be specified in the
      order of delegation. But if the State Government on
      consideration of the situation finds it necessary, it may
      again delegate the power of detention to the aforesaid
      authorities from time to time but at no time the delegation
      shall be for a period of more than three months. The period
      as mentioned in Section 3 (2) of the Act refers to the
      period of delegation and it has no relevance at all to the
      period for which a person may be detained. Since the Act
      does not require the detaining authority to specify the
      period for which a detenue is required to be detained,
      order of detention is not rendered invalid or illegal in the
      absence of such specification."14) Referring to the three Judge Judgment of the Apex Court inT.Devaki vs. Government of Tamil Nadu(3 supra), the Apex

Court inAravind Choudhary(2 supra) dealt with an identical

situation and held as under:"Learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, relied
      upon the judgment of this Court in 2015 (13) SCC 722
      Cherukuri Mani W/o. Narendra Chowdari Vs. The Chief
      Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others,9and submitted that the period of detention cannot
     exceed three months as laid down in the said judgment.We are unable to accept the submission made by the
     learned counsel as the limit of three months is applicable
     toSection 3 (2)of the above said Act and not toSection 3
     (1). This is clear from three Judge Bench judgment of
     this Court in 1990 (2) SCC 456 T.Devaki v. Government of
     Tamil Nadu and otherslaying down as follows:The expression 'the State Government are
           satisfied that it is necessary so to do, they
           may, by order in writing direct that during
           such period as may be specified in the order"occurring in sub-section (2) ofSection 3relates to the period for which the order of
           delegation issued by the State Government is
           to remain in force and it has no relevance to
           the period of detention.        The period as
           mentioned in Section 3 (2) of the Act refers to
           the period of delegation and it has no
           relevance at all to the period for which a
           person may be detained.The observations in judgment of this Court in
     Cherukuri Mani W/o Narendra Chowdari (supra) cannot be
     read contrary to the observation in judgment of three
     Hon'ble Judges. Thus, limitation of period for delegation
     underSection 3 (2)does not control the period of
     detention for which power is exercised by the State
     Government which is laid down in Section 13 of the Act.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed."15) In view of the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court inT.Devaki(3 supra) and the subsequent judgment of the Apex

Court inAravind Choudarycase (2 supra), which was decided

basing on the judgment inT.Devakicase (3 supra), we hold that10the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

detention order should not have been passed for morethan three

months at a stretch cannot be accepted. Hence, we see no merits

in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.16) There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions,

pending if any in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.___________________
                                              C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J



                                            ___________________
                                             T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
15.06.2018
gkv