Dismissed

Sandhya Singh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Apr 2021WP/102/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a preventive detention order, the High Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the detaining authority had sufficient material regarding repeated drug peddling offenses to record subjective satisfaction that the detenu posed a threat to public order and health.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The detention order and confirmation order are upheld.

Sandhya Singh Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO (Special Original J urisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 102 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

9qn9|,.y9^{Singh,W/o Raj Kumar Singh} @^{Kalu Singh, aged 26 years,} R/o.H.No.'13-1-514, Gandi Hanuman, Mangaihat, Hyderabad.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Go\4. (Poil.), GAD, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City.

¶12

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda, rtO"ruOul:*UTpONDE

¶13

NTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus under Art.226 of the Constitution of lndia directing the respondents to produce Sri. Raj Kumar Singh @ Kalu Singh S/o. Brij lr/ohan Singh, now detained at Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, before this Hon'ble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwithiset at liberty after declaring his detention vide SB(l) No.24BlPD-2lHYO12020, dated 24-11-2020 passed by the 2nd respondent and consequential confirmation orders passed by the '1 st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.256 General Administration (Spl.(Law&Order) Department, daled 01-02-2021 after receiving the opinion of the Advisory Board as illegal, u nco nstitutiona I and void.

¶15

(Prayer is amended as per Court Order, dated 25.03.2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2021.)

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT. B. MOHANA REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI G. MALLA REDDY, AGP ON^behalf of

¶18

THE ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

ARR.J&Dr.SAJ W P No I02.l2O2l

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND

¶22

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶23

WRIT P TITION No.1O2 ot 2021-

¶24

o RDER : (Per the Hon'ble Dr. lustice Shameem Akther)

¶25

Mrs. Sandhya Singh, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of her husband, Raj Kumar Singh @ Kalu Singh, S/o. Brij Mohan Singh, aged about 35 years, the detenu, challenging the detention order, vide SB(I) No.24B/pD-2/HyD/ 2020, dated 24.LL.2020, passed by the respondent No.2Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, wherein, 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") and the consequential conFirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.256, dated Ot.O2.2O2l, jssued by the respondent No.1-Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana.

¶26

We have heard the submissions of Smt. B,Mohana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Malla Reddy, learned .L_Assistant Government^pleader for Home appearing on behalf of

r*-+..rii.C.l.,

I -t

learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record.

¶31

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. In the solitary crime relied by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu, the detenu moved five bail petitions and all the five bail petitions were dismissed by the Court concerned. Hence, the detenu continues to be in^judicial custody. Without there being any cogent material on record, the detaining authority reached to the conclusion that the detenu is likely to be released on bail in the near future and would indulge in similar illegal activities. The impugned detention order is^passed on surmises and conjectures. The detaining authority got swayed away by the stale crimes registered against the detenu and arrived at subjective satisfaction that the detenu is a habitual offender and termed him as a^'drug offender'. The subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authorlty for preventively detaining the detenu is based on irrelevant, extraneous and non-existent material. The detenu was not supplied with the material basing on which the impugned detention order was passed, in the language known to him, within the statutory period, Non-supply of material in the language known to the detenu within the statutory^period from the date of the order of detention vitiates the impugned detention order. Already criminal law was set into motion against the detenu. Hence, there is no need for the respondents to invoke

¶32

ARR,J&DT,SAJ W.P.No.102 o1202l

¶33

¶34

draconian^{preventive detention laws against him' The detaining} authority did^{not assign any reason for comingto a conclusionthat} the activities of^{the detenu are affecting the public order' Further'} the solitary case^{allegedagainst the detenu does not add up to} "disturbingthepublicorder".Itisconfinedwithintheambitand scopeoftheword"lawandorder".Sincetheoffenceallegedis under the Narcotic^{Drugsand Psychotropic SubstancesAct, 1985} (for short,^'NDPS Act'), the^{detenu can certainly be tried and} convicted under^{the said speciallaw. Thus, there was no need for} the detaining authority^{to invoke the draconianpreventive detention} laws. Hence, the^{impugned detentionorder tantamountsto} colourable exercise of^{power. The detaining authorityhas to be} extremely careful while^{passing the detention order, sincethe} detention ipso facto^{adverselyaffects the fundamental right of} personal liberty enjoyed by the^{peopleunder Article 21 of the} Constitution of India.^{Thus, the detention order islegally} unsustainable and ultlmately,^{prayed to set aside the same and} allow the writ^{petitionas prayed for. In support of her contentions'} the learned counsel for^{the petitloner had placed relianceon the} following decisions.

¶35

Ram Manohar Lohia^{Vs. The State of Biharl}

¶36

ll, Kirit Kumar Chaman^{Lal Kundaliya Vs. Union of India2}

¶37

iii. Ichhu Devi Choraria^{Vs. Union of India3} iv. Vashisht Narain Karwaria^{Vs. State of UP4} K.Lalitha Vs. State^{of Telanganas}

¶38

vi, S. Anu Vs. State of^Telanganai

¶39

\AIR I966 Supreme^{Court 740} r 1i9E; 2 Supreme Court Cases 436 t Aln t980 Supreme Court 1983 t AIR 1990 Supreme Coun 1272

¶40

1 Dccided on 2 L I I .2019 in W.P.No. 19590 of 2019 by Telangana ll igh Coutl

¶41

u l)ecidcd on 23.0 I .2020 in W.P.No.26682 of 201 9 by Telangana H igh Coun

¶42

¶43

ARR,J&Dr SAJ W.P No.l02 of 202l

¶44

)

¶45

vii. Shiv Parsad Bhatnagar Vs, State of M.P.7

¶46

viii. Khaja Bilal Ahmed Vs, State of Telanganas

¶47

On the other hand, Sri G.Malla Reddy, Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would contend that the detenu is a 'drug offender'. He, along with his associates, have been indulging in peddling of 'Ganja', a narcotic drug, among the innocent people in the Iimits of Hyderabad Police Commissionerate, duly endangering the Iives of youth and innocent people, causing irreparable damage to the body organs, including Central Nervous System and thereby, crippling the health of those who are addicted to drugs. The unlawful activities of the detenu were causing widespread danger to the public health and were detrimental to the public order. The crime allegedly committed by the detenu was suFficient to affect the even tempo of the society and create a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people at large. Further, the detenu was caught red-handed while in possession of 'Ganja' weighing about 24 Kgs. Hence, it cannot be said that there is no evidence to link the detenu with the alleged ofFence. Substantial quantity of 'Ganja' was seized from the possession of the detenu. The ill-effects of consuming'Ganja'is fatal to any person. All the mandatory provisions and the safeguards envisaged under the law were strictly followed while passing the impugned detention order and hence, the impugned detention order does not suffer From illegality or impropriety. The impugned detention order was passed on 24.L7.2020 and the detenu was served with English version of the detention order, grounds for detention and documents relied

¶48

( l98l ) I Suprenre Courl Cascs .156 *:otq scc online sC l6-57

¶49

I-

¶50

ARR, J &^DTSAJ W.P.No^102of2021

¶51

¶52

¶53

upon, on 26.7L.2020,^{duly reading and explaining the same in the} language known^{to him, l.e', 'Hindi'and the detenuacknowledged} the receipt of^{the same.Further,as requested by the detenu' he} was furnished^{with the Hindi version of the entire materialon} 30.17.2020,^{i.e., within the statutoryperiod from the date of} passing of the impugned^{detention order and the detenu} acknowledged^{the receiptof the same' Despite registeringfive} cases involving^{offences of murder, grievoushurt and peddlingof} narcotic drugs^{between the years 2011 to 2019 (which were} referred to as^{his antecedent criminal history),the detenu did not} mend his attitude^{and continuedto commit similaroffence'With a} view to^prevent the^{detenu from further indulginginsuch} dangerous^{activities, whichare detrimental to the public health at} large, the^{impugneddetention orderwas passed. Further, the} Advisory Board,^{in its reviewmeeting} held on 04.01.2021,^uPon hearing the detenu^{and the concerned investigating officialsand} upon considering^{the entire material placed beforeit' renderedits} opinion that there^{is sufficient causefor detention of the detenu'} On considering^{the opinion of the Advisory Board and upon} considering the^{entire material, the Governmentconflrmed the} impugned detention^{order, videG'O'Rt'No'256'General} Administration^{(Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, dated 01'02'2021'} Therefore, the^{detaining authority was legallyjustified in passing} the impugned^{detention order and ultimately, prayedto dismiss the} writ^{petition. in support of his contentions,the learned Assistant} Government^{Pleaderhad placedreliance on the following decisions'}

¶54

ARR,J&DT,SAJ 7 W.P No.L02 oI2021

¶55

¶56

Kirti Kumar Nirula Vs. State of Maharashtrae

¶57

Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of Indial0

¶58

In view of the submissions made by both sides, the point that arises for determination in this Writ petition is:

¶59

"Whether the impugned detention order, dated 24.11,2020, passed by the respondent No.2Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, and the confirmation order, dated O1.O2.2O21, passed by the respondent No.7-Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Departmentt Government of Telangana, are liable to be set aside?"

¶60

POINT: Briefly, the Facts of the case are that by relying on a solitary case registered against the detenu in Crime No.t94/2020 oF Mangalhat Police Station, For the offence under Section B(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985, within the timirs of Hyderabad Police Com m issionerate, the respondent No.2-Commissioner of Pollce, Hyderabad City, passed the detention order, dated 24.11.2020. According to the respondent No.2, the detenu is a 'drug offender'. He, along with his associates, has been indulging in illegal and highly dangerous activities of peddling 'Ganja', a narcotic drug, among the innocent people in the limits of Hyderabad Police Com m issionerate, duly endangering the lives of youth and innocent people and acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health as well. The detenu is a potential threat to the maintenance of public order in general and public health in particular. Though the five bail petitions moved by the detenu in the solitary crime relied by the detaining authority

¶61

"^{(200s) 9 SupremeCoun} Cases 65

¶62

"'^{( 1990)I SupremeCouftCases309}

¶63

¶64

¶65

ARR, J & Dr S{J W P No 102 01 2021

¶66

¶67

for preventively detaining the detenu were dismissed by the Courts concerned, he again moved a bail petition before the High Court on 31.10.2020 and the same is pending adjudication by the High Court. There is every possibility of the detenu getting bail and indulging in commission of similar offences after his release on bail, which would be detrimental to the public order. Therefore, in order to prevent the detenu from indulging in similar illegal activities, which are detrimental to the public order, the impugned detention order, dated 24.It.2020, was passed, which was confirmed by the Government by order, dated 01.02.2021.

¶68

The material placed on record reveals that the detenu-Raj Kumar Singh, S/o. Br\ f4ohan Singh, aged about 35 years, SA 'drug offender'. He, along with associates, has been peddling 'Ga n j a', a narcotic drug, in the limits of l-lyderabad Police Commissionerate and has been endangering the lives of youth and innocent people causing irreparable damage to the public health at large, His illegal activities have caused widespread danger to the public health. The detaining authority relied on a solitary case for preventively detaining the detenu. We shall present it in a tabular column, the date of occurrence, the date of registration of FIR, the offences complained of and its nature, such as bailable/non-bailable or cognizable/non-cognizable.

¶69

CrimeNo.	Dateof Occurrence	Dateof registration ofFIR	Offenceli	Nature
L94/2020 of lvlangalhatPolice Statron	17.08.2020	77.OB.2024	SectionB(c) r/w 20(b)(il)(ctof NDPSAct,1985 Ouantitv:24kgs ofGanja l	Cognizable/ NonBaable

¶70

ARR.J&Dr^SAJ W P No.102^{of 2021}

¶71

¶72

The material^{placed on record further revealthat the detenu'} along with his^{associates, has been indulging in peddling'Ganja"a} narcotic drug, duly^{endangeringthe lives oF youth causing} irreparable damage^{to the body organs, thereby cripplingthe} mental and^{physical health of the persons,who are addictedto} drugs. On^{perusal of the cases which were referred as antecedent} crimlnal history^{of the detenureveals that in November, 2011,the} detenu, along^{with others, alleged to have caused death of one} Laxman Singh and^{a case in Crime No'209/2011on the file of} Mangalhat Police^{Station, was registeredagainst him and others for} the offences^{punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC' In} November, 2016,^{the detenu and his associates were caught} transporting^{dry ganja weighing about4'28Kgs and a case in Crime} N0.948/2016 on^{the file of Prohibition & Excise Station,Dhoolpet'} was registered^{for the offence under Section B(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c)of} NDPSAct,Thedetenuwasgrantedconditionalbailinthesaid crime by the^{Court concernedand he was released from prison on} lg.l2.2OL6. In^{March, 2017, the detenuand his associateswere} again caught^{transportingdry ganja weighing about 1'5 Kqs and a} caSelnCrimeNo.5ll20TTonthefileofProhibition&ExciseStation, Dhoolpet, was^{registered for the offence under Section B(c) r/w} 20(b)(ii)(B) of^{NDPS Act. In the said case also/ the detenu was} granted conditional^{bail by the Courtconcernedand he was} released from^{prison on 02.05.2017. In April, 2019, a CaSe in} Crime No.11Ol2}lg^{on the file of MangalhatPS' was registered} againstthedetenuandhisassociatesfortheoffencespunishable under Sections^{324,448 rlw 34 of IPC for causing injuries to the} de facto^{complainanttherein with woodenstick by trespassing into}

¶73

¶74

'\l.lil .l l\ lr .'\ i^I . ll)-l .r ,)lr.)

¶75

¶76

his house. However, the said Calendar Case^{endedin compromise.} In Septembet, 2019, the detenu and his^{associateswere again} caught transporting^ganja weighing about 4^Kgs and^{a case in} Crime No.249/2Ot9 on the file of Mangalhat^{PS, was registered} against the detenu and others for the offence^{punishable under} Section B(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. In the^{said case, the} detenu was^granted conditional bail by the Court^{concernedand he} was released from^prison on 13.11.2019.

¶77

In the solitary crime relied by the detaining authority^for preventively detainlng the detenu, i.e., Crime No.194l2020, the detenu was caught red-handed^possessing 24^Kgs of^{'Ganja' in a} plastic gunny bag. During the course of interrogation, the detenu confessed that he^purchased the said contraband from^his associates on credit basis to sell the same to others to^{make easy} money. Later he was arrested and remanded to^judicial custody. The material placed on record also reveal that the detenu^has moved as many as five bail petitions before the Courts concerned. The prosecution opposed the bail and all the five bail^{petitionswere} dismissed by the Courts concerned. Then, the detenu^{moveda bail} petition before this High Court on 3L.L0.2020 and the same was pending, when the detention order was passed. Despite registering several crimes against the detenu for^peddling of^{narcotic drugsand} though he was enlarged on bail, he did not mend his attitude and was again caught red-handed peddling substantial^quantity of 'Ganja'in Crime No.i94l2020. It is relevant to state that the detenu was q-anted bail by this High Court vide order dated 27.72.2020 passed in Criminal Petition No.5434 ot 2020. So the apprehension

¶78

'.r.1 .i. .r i\

¶79

¶80

of the detaining authority that the possibility of detenu being released on bail and indulge in similar offence, cannot be said to be unjustified. Under these circumstances, the findings of the respondents that the illegal activities of the detenu would disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and there is imminent possibility of the detenu again indulging in similar prejudicial activities, cannot be brushed aside.

¶81

It is apt to state that preventive detention is different from punitive detention. While punitive detention could be enforced under ordinary criminal law, the law of preventive detention can be enforced against habitual offenders to prevent them from committing the future similar offences, which are detrimental to the public interest, disturbing the even tempo of life and causing damage to public health. The legal parameters for testing the validity of 'preventive detention' fundamentally vary from that of 'punitive detention'. Also, 'Public order' is distinct from 'law and order'. While individual offences without affecting public at large could be considered as violating'law and order', the offences that affect larger public and disturbs the even tempo of public life fall under the category of disturbance to public order, for the category oF these cases, the law of preventive detention shall be enforced.

¶82

In the case of Madhu Limaye Vs. Sub-Divisional Magistratell. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

¶83

"The acts which disturb public tranquility or are breaches of the peace should not be given a narrow meaning, but " i^{tstol I scc 746}

¶84

AllR,J & l)r SA.i W P No 102 ol2O2,

¶85

¶86

¶87

should be given a liberal interpretation. For the expression 'in the interest of public order' is very wide amplitude."

¶88

L2. In the case of Commissioner of Police & Others^Vs'

¶89

C,Anita (Smt.)12, the Hon'ble Apex Court exanrined the^issueof "publlc order" and "law and order" and observed as follows:

¶90

"The crucial issue is whether the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to public order. While the expression "law and order" is wider in scope inasmuch as contravention of law always affects order, "public order" has a narrower ambit, and public order could be affected by only such contravention which affects the community or t.he public at large. Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. The distinction between the areas of "law and order" and "public order" is one of the degree and extent of the reach of the act in question on r;ociety. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. If a contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum of the public, it could raise problem of law and order only. It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps to distingulsh it as an act affecting "public order" from that concerning "law and order". The question to ask is: "Does lt lead to disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranq rility of the society undisturbed?" This question has to be faced ln every case on its facts."

¶91

In the case of R. Kalavathi v. State of Tamil Nadur3, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the case affecting the public order, observed that even a single act which has the propensity of

¶92

'r lzoo+;I^scc,t67

¶93

"J2oe6)^{e scc r.r}

¶94

AFn,,r & Dr i" rl \ P No.l02 oi -/021

¶95

affecting the even tempo of life and^public tranquility^{would be} sufficient for detention,

¶96

L4, As per the clause (f) of Section 2 of the P.D.Act, a "drug offender" means a^person/ who manufactures, stocks,^imports, exports, sells or distributes any drug or cultivates any^plant or does any other thing in contravention of any of the^provisions of^the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940^(Central Act XXIII of 1940), or^the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,^1985(Central Act 61 of 1985) and the rules, notification and orders^{made under} either Act, or in contravention of any other^Law for^{the time being} in force, or who knowingly expends or applies any^moneyin furtherance or support of the doing of any of the above^mentioned things by himself or through any other^{person,or who abets in any} other manner the doing of any such^thing.

¶97

It is also^pertinent to state that the^{personal liberty of an} individual, which the law^preserves and^{protects, can also be taken} away by following the^procedure established^{by law, when it is used} to^jeopardize the^{public good} and not merely^{private interests. An} order or detention is not a curative or^{reformativeor punitive} action, but a^preventive action, the avowed object of^{which is to} prevent the anti-social and subversive elements from imperiling the welfare of the people or the security of the nation or^from disturbing the public tranquility or from indulging in smuggling^activitiesor from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and^psychotropic substances etc. In the instant case, the commission of alleged offence as indicated in the above table clearly demonstrates^that the detenu indulged in^peddling substantial^quantity oF'Ganja'to

¶98

¶99

¶100

11 ARR. J & I)r SAJ W.P.No.l02 ot 2O2l

¶101

¶102

sell the same to youth and peopre addicted to drugs to make easv money, which would certainly disturb the public peace and tranquility. As mentioned above, the detenu, despite registering criminal cases against him, did not mend his attitude and committed similar offence of peddling ,ganja, in huge quantity. So it ls imperative upon the officers concerned to pass the order of detention, since the acts of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of p u blic order. The illegal activities of the detenu were of such a reach and extent, that they would certainly a ffect the even tempo of life and the public health at large and are prejudicial to the public order. The detaining authority had sufficient material to record subjective satisfaction that the detention of the detenu was necessary to maintain public order and even tempo of rife of the community. The order of detention does not suffer from any iilegarity. The grounds of detention, as indicated in the impugned order, are found to be relevant and in tune with the provisions oF the p, D. Act. The series of crimes allegedly committed by the detenu and his persistent efforts to get bair in the said crimes and getting bail orders, make it amply clear that there is every posslbility oF detenu committing similar offences in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further, the material placed on record reveals that the detenu was supplied with the documents relied upon by the detaining authority in the Ianguage known to him, i.e., ,Hindi,, besides Engtish. The impugned detention order was passed on 24.II.2020 and the detenu was served with English version of the detention order, grounds for *aid detention and documents relied upon, on 26.ll.ZO2O, duly reading expraining the same in the language known to him, i.e.,,Hindi,

¶103

r:.:'

¶104

ARR.J&Dr SAJ l_i w P No 102 oI2011

¶105

; , I

¶106

and the detenu acknowledged the receipt of the same. Further,^he was furnished with the Hindi version of the entire material^on 30.11.2020, i,e., within the statutory^{period from} the date^of passing of the impugned detention order and the detenu acknowledged the receipt of the same. The material^relied on and circumstances show that the subjective satisfaction of^{the detaining} authority is not tainted or illegal on any account.^{The factsand} circumstances indicate that the acts of the detenu cannot^be effectively dealt with under ordinary criminal law.^{Under these} circumstances, the detaining authority is^{justified in passingthe} impugned detention order.

¶107

16, It is also vehemently contended by the^{learned counsel for} the^petitioner that there is no speciFic^{mentionin the impugned} detention order that the detaining authority^{had not relied over the} two criminal cases registered against the detenu,^{i'e., Crime} No.209/2011 registered for the ofFences^{punishable under Section} 302 r/w 34 of IPC and Crime^{No.110/2019 registeredfor the} offences^punishable under Sections 324,448^{rlw 34 of IPC to hold} that the detenu is a drug offender. It^{is pertinentto state that the} detaining authority had clearly stated^{in the impugneddetention} order, dated 24.11.2020, that the^{detenu indulged in the offences} which falls under the^provisions of^NDPSAct, by^{exploitingthe} innocent persons, especially^youth, with a deceitful^meansand causing adverse impact on the^{central nervoussystem and other} parts of the body, thereby endangering^public health at^large, Those observations clearly demonstrate^{that the detaining authority} had solely relied on cases^registered under^{the NDPS Act and}

¶108

ARR,J&Dr.SAJ W P No.l02 ol 2021

¶109

¶110

¶111

termed the detenu as Drug-oFfender and excruded the reriance over the aforementioned two criminar cases registered for the offences punishabre under Section 302 r/w 34 0f Ipc and sections 324, 448 r/w 34 0f Ipc, which were referred to as antecedent criminar history of the detenu onry. ThereFore, there is no force in the said contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

¶112

We have gone through the citations relted upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. in Ram Manohar Lohia,s case (1 supra), the detention order was passed under Defence of India Rules, 1962, wherein, the majority view of the Five Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that where a man can be deprived of his liberty under a rule by a simple process of making a certain order, he can onry be so deprived, if the order is in terms of the prescribed rules and that strict compliance of the rule is the essence of the matter. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the said preposition of law. In Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya,s case (2 supra), the petitioner therein assaired the detention order mainry on the ground that certain materiar reried upon or referred to in the order of detention were not supplied to him and hence, he could not make an effective representation to the Government. The Hon,bre High Court of Gujarat held that failure to supply the documents to the detenu would not vitiate the order of detention. Under those circumstances, the Hon,ble Apex Court held that the documents taken into consideration by the detaining authority have to suppried to the detenu as part of the grounds with reasonable expedition, so as to enable the detenu to make an effective representation. In the instq{rt case, it is not the case of the detenu that he was not

¶113

ARR, J & DT SAJ W P No 102 oi202l

¶114

¶115

supplied with the material^{taken into consideration by the detaining} authority for detaining^the detenu.^{In Ichhu Devi Choraria'scase} (3 supra), the detention order was^{passed on 27.05.1980duly} serving the^grounds of detention^{on the detenu. However,the} detenu was not served with the^{material documents referredto in} the grounds of detention,^{till11.07'1980.Underthose} circumstances, the^{Hon'ble Apex Court held that since there was} unreasonable delay on^{the part of the detainingauthorityin} supplying the copies of all^{relevant documents to the detenu,his} continued detention^{was illegal and void. In the instantcase, the} material^placed on^{record revealsthat the detenu was supplied with} the relevant documents^{vis-d-vishis detention,within the statutory} period. In Vashisht Narain Karwaria's^{case(4 supra), the detenu} therein contended that^{he had beendeprivedof making an eFfective} and^{purposeful representationas envisagedunder Article22(5) ot} the Constitution of^{India, since no particularsor details are given in} the documents I and II^{enclosedwith the groundsof detention'The} said contention^{was not denied by the first respondentthereinin} the counter.^{Hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the} detention order on that^{ground' In K.Lalitha'scase (5 supra) and} S.Anu's case^{(6 supra), a DivisionBench of this Court had set aside} theorderofdetentionpassedagainstthedetenustherein,having regard to facts and^{circumstancesof the said cases' In Shiv} Parsad Bhatnagar's^{case (7 supra) and KhajaBilal Ahmed's} case (B supra), the^{Hon'ble Supreme Court held that stale or} irrelevant or^{vague groundsare sufficientto renderthe detention} order illegal. It^{is settled law that each case has to be decided on its} own facts and^{circumstances'The decisionsrelied upon by the}

¶116

¶117

¶118

learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand,

¶119

In Kirti Kumar Nirula's case (9 supra) relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there is no statutory^prohibition against detaining^a person based on a single incident, provided the detaining authority had material placed before it to come to a reasonable opinion that that from the surrounding circumstances coupled with the incident in question, a satisfaction as to the future illegal activities of the detenu could be inferred. In Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal's case⁽¹⁰ supra) relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is not the law that no order or detention can validly be^passed against a^person in custody under any circumstances and therefore, the facts and circumstances of each case has to be taken into consideration in the context^of considering the order of detention^passed in the^r:ase of a detenu who is already in^jail.

¶120

For the foregoing reasons, we do not see any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶121

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ

¶122

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶123

SD/- B,SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/' ,EC#N^OFFTCER

¶124

One fair^{copv to THE HON'BLE SRIJU-STICE A' RAJA:SHEKER REDDY} --'tfo, Hi" Lordship's Kind Perusal)

¶125

One fair copv^{to THE HON'BLE Dr' JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER} vrrE rqrr "-'(eot riiJr-ordship's Kind Perusal)

¶126

To,