Dismissed

Smt. Sneha Singh v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Telangana HC10 Aug 2021WP/1826/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus challenge to a preventive detention order passed against an alleged drug offender on the strength of two NDPS cases involving seizure of ganja. The court held that the detaining authority had considered the conditional bail orders and the material, that the activities disturbed public order, and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Sneha Singh Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ,AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 1826 OF 2021

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt. Sneha Singh, W/o. Kishore Singh Aged about2T^years, Occ.House^WifeRl/o. H.No.1 3-1-932, Bada Bangalow, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary General^{Administration} Department (Law and Order) Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Commissioner of Police and Additional District, Magistrate^(Executive) Hyderabad District.

¶15

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chenchalguda,^Hyderabad.

¶16

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 ot 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, order or direction more^{partlcularlyin the nature of WRITOF} HABEAS CORPUS, directing the respondents^{to release the Detenu forthwithby} setting aside the detention order^passed by^{the 2nd respondentvideproceedings} sB(l) No.206/PD-2lHYDl2o20 dated 2911012020 as^{confirmed in G'O.Rt.No.121} dated 12101t2o21^passed by the^{1st respondent declaringthese orders, as illegal,} null and void as it is contrary to the^{Article21 of Constitutionof lndia}

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶19

Petition under Section^15'1 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Courtmaybe pleasedto receive} the list enclosed^judgments of^{the Apex Court and this Hon'ble Courtas part of the} record in the above Writ Petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl.^{CHALLA DHANAMJAYA}

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI^{T.SRIKANTH REDDY GP FOR HOME} FOR ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE^GENERAL(TG)

¶22

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY ANO

¶25

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶26

WRIT PETITION N o.1826 of 2O2L

¶27

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble Dr. JLrstice Shameem Akther)

¶28

Smt. Sneha Singh, the petitioner, has filed this l-iabeas Corpus petition on behalf oF her son, Pavan Singh, S/o. Kisho-e Singh, aged about 22 years, the detenu, challenging the detention order vide SB (I) No.206/PD -2/HYD/2020, dated 29 .t0 .2020 , pa ssed by rhe respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad wherein, the detenu was detained under Section 3(2) of the Telangana^prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, D rug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertilizer Off:nders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document offende^-s, 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 conFirmat on order vide G.O.Rt.No.121, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, dated 12.01.2021, passed by the responcent No.1.

¶29

2, Heard the submissions of Sri Challa Dhanarnjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.Srikanth Reddy, learn:d Government Pleader for Home representing the learned Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record.

¶30

The background of the case, in brief, is that by relying two criminal cases registered against the detenu in Crimer Nos.279/2079

¶31

wP No.l826l2021

¶32

¶33

and 736/2020 of^{Mangalhat Police Station, Hyderabad,the} respondentNo.2-CommissionerofPolice,Hyderabad,passedthe impugned detention^{order,dated 29.70'2020' According to the} respondent^{N0.2, the detenuis a'drug offender',as he hasbeen} indulging in highly^{dangerousactivitiesof peddling'qanja', a narcotic} drug, among the^{people in the limits ofHyderabadPolice} Com m issionerate,^{duly endangering the lives of youth and innocent} people, causinq irreparable^{damage to their body organs'including} the Central Nervous^{Systemand thereby, crippling the mental and} physical health of the^{people addicted to drugs'} With a view to prevent the detenu from^{damaging the health} of general Publlc, IS prej ud icia I to especially^youth, by^{supplying'Ganja',which} maintenance of^{public order, the impugneddetention} order, dated 29.IO.2O2O,^{was passed,which was confirmedby the} Government, byorder,datedl2.0l.202l.Hence,thisWritPetitionbeforethis Cou rt.

¶34

4, The learned^{counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended} that the impugned^{detention order isillegal'arbitrary'} unconstitutional,^{improper, against the principlesof natural justice} and has been^{passedin a mechanical manner and without application} ofmind.Thedetenuisfalselyimplicatedinthecasesreliedbythe detainingauthorityaswellasreferredashiScriminalantecedent history. The^{alleged criminal activities of the detenu, in any event'} would not satisfy^{the word'drug offender'.The detaining authority} has not applied its^{mind to the facts and circumstancesof the case,} while^passing the^{impugneddetentionorder' The detenuwas} granted conditional bail in both^{the crimes relied by the detaining} authority.^{Hence,there was no need to invokethe draconian}

¶35

ARR,J&Dr.SA.J WP ^"o^lE26/202,

¶36

preventive detention laws against the detenu, since th(t detenu would be well within the surveillance of police. Further, the detenu has been complying the bail conditions. The conditions imposed in the bail orders were sufficient to prevent the detenu fro'n fleeing from justice. Thus, the impugned detention order is vii:iated by nonconsideration of the bail conditions. After release on bail, the detenu has not involved in any crime or criminal activity. Further, the detaining authority failed to furnish the material rerieri upon by it to the detenu, within the mandatory period of five days f.om the date of execution of the impugned detention order. Moreover, the cases alleged against the detenu do not add up to "disturlring the public order". They are confined within the ambit and sco;:e of the word "law and order". since the offences aileged are under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ,NDpS Act,), the detenu can certainly be tried under the said sper;ial law. Thus, there was no need for the detaining authority to invokr: the draconian preventive detention laws. Hence, the impugned cetention order ta nta mou nts to colou ra ble exercise of power.^preve.ttive 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 adversel,r affects the fundamental right of personal liberty enjoyed by the people under Article 21 0F the Constitution of India. Thus, the detention order is legally unsustainable and ultimately, prayed to set e side the same and allow the writ petition as prayed for. In r;upport of his c0ntentions, the learned counsel had relied on the following decisions.

¶37

Kattuboina siva vs. The coflector and District r,tagistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada and othersl 2, {.Abamedkutty Vs. Union of India (UOI) and others2

¶38

'^Ver"-UlAPlOl t Ol2Ot t

!q--.e=

wP No.l826l2021

On the other hand, Sri T.Srikanth Reddy, the^learned Government Pleader for Home,^{appearingfor the respondents,} supported the impugned detention^{order and submitted the detenu} has been indulging in^grave and dangerous activities^{of peddling} 'Ganja', a narcotic substance, duly endangering the^{lives of youth} and causing irreparable damage to^{their body organs including} Central Nervous System and^{thereby, crippling the health of those} who are addlcted to drugs.^{The unlawful activitiesof the detenu} were causing widespread danger to^{the public health and were} <Jetrimental to the^{public order. In the first crime, i.e., Crime} No.279/2019, the^{police seized 1,1 kgs of 'Ganja'andin the second} crime, i.e., Crime^{No.136/2020,the policeseized 44 Kgs of 'Ganja'} from the^possession of the^{detenu.Free sale of drugs not just} impacts individuals and their^{health,but also adversely affectsthe} society at large. If the^{youth gets caught in a trap of drug addiction,} they slowly begin to^{disobey the law and commitpetty crimes, in} order to ensure constant^{supply of drugs to themselves and} eventually becomes^{physically and financially,a burdento the} society itselF. Therefore,^{sale of drugsby drug offendersadversely} affects a large segment of^{societyand hence, itdisturbsthe} maintenance of^public order.^{Further,the detenu was servedwith} the detention order,^{grounds of detention and the documentsrelied} upon by the detaining^{authority,both in Englishand Hindi languages} and the detenu acknowledged^{the receipt of the same. Further, the} two crimes relied upon for^{detainingthe detenu were committedby} him in^quick succession, In^{spite of his arrest and remand in the first} crime, he did not mend^{his attitude and continued to commitsimilar}

¶43

'^{MeNUlsclo42ttI 9go}

¶44

ARR,J&Di.SA,J wP No 1826/202l

¶45

)

¶46

offences^{after his release on bail' Wlth a view to preverltthe detenu} from further^{indulging in such dangerousactivities in tlre interest of} the society,^{the impugneddetention order was passed'The} subjective^{satisfaction reached by the detaining authorityin} preventively^{detaining the detenu is not taintedor ille:gal'Further'} the Advisory^{Board, In its review meeting held on 14'"'2'2020'upon} hearing the^{detenuand the concerned investigatingofficials and} upon considering^{the entire materialplacedbeforei1:' rendered its} opinion that^{there is sufficientcausefor detention of t1e detenu'On} considering^{the opinlonof the AdvisoryBoardand uF'on considering} the entire^{material, the Government confirmed the impugned} detention^{order Vide G.o.Rt.No.121, dated 12'oL,2o2l. Therefore,} thedetainingauthorityWaSlegallyjustifiedinpaSsln']theimpUgned detention^{order. All the mandatory provisionsand the safeguards} envisaged^{underthe law were strictly followed' wlrile passingthe} impugned^{detention order and hence' the impugned detention order} does not^{suffer from illegality or impropriety and ullimately'prayed} In suPPort^{of his contentions,the} to dismiss^{the Writ Petition'} learned^{Government Pleaderhad reliedon the followingdecisions'}

¶47

State^{of Tamilnadu and another vs' KadalKani3} 2, Muppidi^{swapna vt' ii"i"} "ir"langana and otherr;a 3. Banoth^{DeePla vs' stli"'"r rti""SJnaand anothets} 4. State^{of Tamilnadu ana-anotnerts'Nabila-and arrother}

¶48

Naresh sinsh^{vs' s;;;;ii;i""sana and othersT}

¶49

6.InviewoftheSubmissionsmadebybothSices,thepointthat arises for^{determination in this Writ Petitionis:}

¶50

otdeL dated "Whether^{the imPugned detention} No.2 and^the 29.1O.2O2O, Passed^{bY resPondent}

¶51

'^{Qooz) g Supreme Councases6l l}

¶52

o iol6 scc online HYd 551

¶53

'^{2019scc onlineTS 3441}

¶54

u ,,il;;;;;;0;.iozo tzoltsj l2 Supreme Court in Cases w^p lro 127^{so2 o12020 b1 theHigh courrtbrrhe s ate of rclangana}

¶55

ARR, J & Dr.S.\ wP No 1826/202 \

¶56

¶57

consequential confirmation order, dated 72.O7.2021t passed by respondent No.l, are tiable to be set aside?,,

¶58

dated

¶59

pOINT: Briefly, the facts of the case are that by relying on two criminal cases registered against the detenu in Crime Nos,279/2019 and 736/2020 of Mangalhat police Station, Hyderabad, the respondent No.2-Commissioner of police, Hyderabad City, passed the detention order, dated Zg.j,O.2O2O. According to the respondent No.2, the detenu is a'drug offender,and has been habitually indulging in illegal activities of peddling narcotic drugs, duly endangering the lives of youth and innocent people, ca using irrepa ra ble damage to their body orga ns including the Centra I Nervous System and thereby, crippling the mental and physica I health of the people addicted to drugs and acting in a manner prejudiciar to the maintenance of pubric order and hearth as weil. The detenu is a potentiar threat to the maintenance of pubric order in general and public health in particular. In the two cases relied upon by the detaining authority, the detenu was granted conditional bail by the Courts concerned. In order to prevent the detenu from indulging in such illegal activities, which are detrimental to the public order, the impugned detention order, dated 29.lO.2O2O, was passed, which was confirmed by the Government by order, dated 12.01.2021.

¶60

8, The material placed on record reveals that the detenu_pavan Singh, S/o. Kishore Singh, who is alleged to be a .drug offender,, has been habitually indulging in procuring .Ganja, to sell the same to youth and people addicted to drugs to make easy and illegal money and lead a lavish life in the limits oF Hyderabad police

¶61

ARR, J &^{DTSA, J} WP No 1826/2021

¶62

¶63

Com m issionerate. His illegal activities^{have causeclwidespread} danger to the^public health.^{The detaining authorityr-elied on two} cases for^preventively detaining the detenu.^{We shall present them} in a tabular column the date of occurrence,^{the date} of^{'egistration of} FIR, the offences complained of and their nature,^{such as} bailable/non-bailable or cognizable/non-cogniza^ble.

¶64

s- No.	CrimeNo.	Dateof Occurrence	Dateof registration ofFIR	Offen:e	Nature
I 1.	1,,n,,0,,o,I MangalhatPolice Station I	01.11.2019	01.11.2019	ectionI^(c)read with20(t ) (ii) (B)ofNDFSAct Q!J:^1.1kgs ofGan a	Cog nizabie/ Non-bailable
2	136/2020 of MangalhatPolice Station	16,06.2020	16.06.2420	SectionI^(,r)read with20(l))⁽ii) (C) ofNDt'S Act Q!y:^44kgsof Gan	Cognizable/ Non-bailable

¶65

As seen from the material^placed on rect)rd, in^Crime No,279/2019, 1100 grams/1.1 kg of Ganja was se:ized from^the possession of the detenu. In Crime No.136/2020, a huge^quantity of 44 kgs of ganja was seized from the^possession of the detenu.^In both the crimes, the detenu voluntarily admitted^{to be in possession} of Ganja. He further disclosed that his father^{Kishore Singh procures} Ganja in bulk^quantity from his sources and every^{wet:k, they sell the} same at higher^price to the needy and^{prospective customersand} earn Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and spend the sale^proceeds lavishly. In Crime No.279/2019, the detenu was arrested^on 01.11.2019. He moved first bail^petition on^{05.11.2019,whichwas} dismissed by the Court concerned. Then, he^{;nqved second bail} petition on 25.11.2019 and the Court concerned granted conditional bail to him vide Crl.M.P.No.4255/2019, dated 03.12.2019, and^he wes- released from jail on 04.L2.2019. After his release^on

¶66

wP No.l826l2021

¶67

¶68

conditionalbailincrimeNo.2Tg/2OLg,thedetenuwasagaincaught possessing Ganja^{and was arrested on 16'06'2020 and a secondcase} in Crime^{No.136/2020 was registeredagainst him' He movedtwo} bail^{petitions in the said crime' whichwere dismissed by the Court} concerned.^{He movedthird ball petition before this Courton} 05,08,2020^{and this Court granted conditional bail to him vide order'} dated^{O5'10'2020,passed in Criminal Petition No'3381/2020 and he} was released^{from jail on 0B'10'2020'}

¶69

The^{learned counsel for thepetitioner,Placing relia nce on} and M.AhamedkuttY's^{case (2} Kattuboina^{Siva's case ( 1 suPra)} supra),^{vehemently argued that non - consid eratio n of the conditional} bail orders^{granted to thedetenu vitiates the detentionorder and} that the^{conditions imposed while grantingbail are sufficient to} prevent the^{detenu from fleeing from justice' Similar contention was} raised in^{Muppidi Swapna's case (2supra) relied by the} respondents,^{wherein, a DivisionBench of this Court held as follows:} The tearned^{counselfor thedetenuargued with lot of emphasis that} some of^{tne tair oralJis aie"iiiiiii'Ztald'!!e::fore the natureof} the conditions^{u''"'l'i'muchretevantfor respondentNo'2 to} consider^{whether tn"v'' l'"''i- t''rrii"ntto pre'ventthe detenutrom} fleeing^from iust',:"''^{lni"tiui-noi-consiairationof the conditional} bait orders^{n"uitili"Z i;"' ;;t";i"'; o'!:!' w" are arraid'we} cannot^{accept tni' 'lui"n)ii'ion- b"'u""irre-sp-e'ctiveof whetherthe} bail orders^{containeiZo'n'iitilo'ns- or not' respond'entNo'2 has arrived} at with the the^{subiectiv" criminat i''iu'ii'ii} ';i;;;:';; i ;^{tiat iJt"'u in spite i'} '"puutinQ^{of h'is arrest} his activities^{in connectionafter} being^{reteased o"i]'i"ii '-i"'"ttu'itvmean'i rhat the detaining} authoritY^{was not"iniv' uu-:; of the' fac'tth-at the detenuwas} reteased^{onbait in ;'i'k"";;;;t'-butatso the- fact that the ordinarv} laws set^{in motioi"na'ie- pii"otnefficaciousEven} court^{the the learnedbait} counset^{for ,n" oulr"lnZ"nui} " "n'i- ptacea g?lo'? 'h" )' ii i ie J^{co n a i t i ons} o r d^{e r} s^{w hi c h,} "^{' i7 Jo'''} " facts of^{the case'reveal that trrespective or"tne} "',2 "Z?,^{ili i'J r'! i t} bait, the^{o"'""' ilZli""'"i"iit'2iiis"aittes-ata;tivities whichis} manifest^{rrom tne iait inui} " 'uny^{u' seven' criminalcases were} registered^{aqainst ";i'm'"i; "'u"'ittir,n' clearly showing that the} oii" ilu'i"o'i"^{iii-Jitul tn" detenuf romrepeatins} a t t eg ed^{con d itio} " his atteged^{itlegal activities'}

¶70

11, In the^{instantcase also' grant of conditionalbail to the detenu} a copy of^the was specifically^{referredin the detentionorderand}

¶71

ARR. J 6i, Df.SA, J wP \o 1826/2021

¶72

¶73

conditional bail order along with other relevant^{nlaterialwere} supplied to the detenu. When the detaining authorit'l^{had noticed} grant of bail on conditions and a copy of the said order has been served on the detenu to make a representation before^lhe authorities concerned, it cannot be said that the detaining autt-ority had^not taken into consideration the conditions imposed while^grating bail^to the detenu. The detaining authority, having examine,l the material against the detenu including^grant of conditional bail, rvas^pleased to pass the impugned detention order. Further, the mat(-.rial placed on record reveal that the detenu committed first crime, i.e., Crime No.279 of 2019 on 01.11.2019 and he was granted conditional bail by the Court concerned on 03.12.2019 vide Crl.M.P.No.4 255/2019 and he was released from jail on 04.12.2019. After releasr: from jail, the petitioner committed similar second crime, i.e., Crime lJo.136 of 2020 on 16.06.2020. It establishes that the detenu had p;rtently violated the bail conditions imposed in the first crime and those: conditions did not deter him from committing second similar crirne where huge quantity of ganja was seized from the possession lf the detenu. Further, in Kamarunnissa v. Union of Indias, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if an authority passes an order afterr recording its satisfaction, such an order cannot be struck down ostensibly on the ground that the proper course for the authority was to oppose the bail and seek cancellation of bail.

¶74

L2, The Iearned counsel for the petitioner also placed strong reliance over the judgment in M.Ahmedkutty's cas;e (2 supra) in support of his contention that non-consideration of bail order would

¶75

1199^| ;^{I Suprerne Court Cases128}

¶76

.ritF.irq

¶77

lRR.J&DrS .l U'P No I 82tr / 202 l

¶78

¶79

amount to non-application of^{mind.Similar contention was raisedin}

¶80

Naresh Singh's case⁽⁷ supra)^{relied by the learned Government} Pleader for Home appearing^for the^{respondents,wherein,a Division}

¶81

Bench of this Court held as^follows:

¶82

"But a close scrutiny of the^{judgmentin N4.Ahmedkutty (supras)} goes to show that the issue before the^{Hon'ble Supreme Courtwas} whether the detaining authority^{consideredthe SupremeCourt's} interim order in^pending appeal^{against High Court's quashingof a} previous order of detention against the^{same detenuwas considered} or not. While deating^{with the said issue, the Hon'ble Supreme} Cou rt held as under:

¶83

"25. Non-consideration of the bail^{order wouldhave} therefore, in this^{case,amountedto non- applicationof mind'} In Union of India^{v. ManoharlalNarang} t(1987)^2SCC 2411 the Supreme Court's^{interim order in pending appeal} against High Court's^{quashing of aprevious order of} dEtentlon igainst the^{same detenuwas not considered} by the detaining^{authoritywhile making the impugned} subsequent order^{againsthim ltwas held thatnon-} consideration of the^{interim order whichconstituteda} relevant and important^{material was fatal to the subsequent} detention order on^{ground of non-applicationof mind'If the} detaining authority^{considered thatorder one couldnot state} with definiteness which^{way his subjective satisfactionwould} have reacted and it^{could have persuaded the detaining} authority to desist^{from passingthe order of detention "}

¶84

Thus, in the aforementioned^{case, the Hon'ble SupremeCourt was} not dealing with the^{issue regarding consideration of conditions} imposed in the bail order^{by the detainingauthority, but that aspect} was not brought to the^{noticeof the Division Benchin WP No 38082} of 2018, wheiein the^{said order waspassedbasing on the order in} w.P.No.32398 0f 2018,^{dated 09 11.2018. The saiddistinction was} not noticed by the^{DivisionBenchin W.P.No.32398of 2018 In the} instant case, as stated^{supra, conditionalbail orderspassedin} favour of the detenu^{wereconsideredby the detaining authority'} When bail orders^{were considered,it cannotbe said that the} conditions imposed^{in thesaidorder were not considered"'}

¶85

13']ntheinstantcase,inVieWoFthefactsandcircumstancesand specific mention of^{grant of conditional bails to the detenuin the} impugned detention^{order, it cannot be said that the detaining} authority did^{not considerthe conditions imposedwhilegranting bail} orders in favour of^{the detenu.so, the contentionof the petitioner} that the impugned^{detention order is vitiated by non-consideration of} the bail conditions cannot^{be accepted.Moreover, the said} contention with^{regard to non-considerationof conditionsmentioned}

¶86

ARR.J&Dr.SA,J wP \o.I826/2021

¶87

¶88

in the bail order^{was adequatelydealt in NareshSi ngh'scase (7} supra) by this Court^{and was negated.}

¶89

L4. Further, it is apt^{to state that preventivedetention is different} from punitive detention.^{whilepunitive detention co-rldbe enforced} under ordinary criminal^{law, the law of preventived 3tentioncan be} enforced against habitual offenders^{to prevent them from committing} the future similar offences,^{which are detrimentato the publlc} interest, disturbing the^even tempo^{of life and causing damageto} public health. The legal parameters for testing the validity^of 'preventlve detention' fundamentally^{vary from that of 'punitive} detention'.

¶90

In the case of Madhu Limaye Vs,^{Sub-Divisional}

¶91

Magistrates. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as^follows

¶92

"The acts which disturb^public tranquility or are^{brea:hesof the} peace should not be given a narrow meaning, but should be^given a liberal interpretation. For the expression'in^{the inter(:stof public} order'is very wide amplitude. "

¶93

In the case of Commissioner of Police & Otlters^{Vs' C.Anita}

¶94

(Smt.)10, the Hon'ble Apex Court examined the issue of^"public

¶95

order" and "law and order" and observed as follows:

¶96

"The crucial issue is whether the activities of^{the rletenuwere} prejudicial to public order. While the expression^"law irnd order"^is wider in scope inasmuch as contravention of^{law alNaysaffects} order, "public order" has a narrower ambit, and^{publi( order could} be afFected by only such contravention^{which affectsthe} community or the^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^"lawand order" and "public order" is one of the degree and^{extentof the} reach of the act in question on society. It is the^potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the comn]unity^which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the^public order. If^a contravention in its effect is confined only to a ferv 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,

¶97

'( r97o) I scc 746

¶98

'u^{(2004)7 scc 467}

¶99

, ,*___

¶100

-le;--*i;**--

¶101

ARR J & Dr SA^J'i. WP No.I a26l^202l

¶102

¶103

maonitude^{and lntensity of the terrorwaveunleashedby a} oi aisoraer^{that helpsto distinsuishit as an act} ;;lii'c;;; ";;;ion #t":;"; ouilo-otJ"r.^{from that concerning"law.and order"'The} ,J""!r ,t,^{;o""tit rtaJ to iistutuan-ce of the currant life of} ;ijil; the community^{so as to amountto a disturbance of the public} Iri"tit'i""t 1, ulre.t -"r."tu^{in rndividual leavrng the tranquilitv} ;;;; .;.;;,,^{,ndisturbed?"ihi' q'u't'on hasto be racedin everv} case on^{its facts."}

¶104

t7. 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 cultivatesany plant or does} any other^{thing in contravention of any of the provisionsof the Drugs} and Cosmetics^{Act, 1940 (Central Act XXIII of 1940)' or the Narcotic} Drugs^{and Psychotropic SubstancesAct'1985 (CentralAct 61 of} 1985) and^{the rules, notification and orders made undereither Act' or} in contravention^{of any other Law for the timebeingin force' or who} knowingly^{expends or applies any moneyin furtheranceor support of} the doing^{of any of the above mentionedthings by himselfor through} any other^{person,or who abets in any othermannerthe doingof any} such^thing

¶105

18.^{The personal liberty of an individual' whichthe law preserves} and^{protects, can also be takenawayby followingthe procedure} established^{by law. whenit is usedto jeopardize the publicaood' In} the instant^{case,the commissionof alleged offences as indicatedin} the above^{table clearly demonstratesthat the detenu'alongwith his} associates,^{clandestinely indulgingin procuring 'Ganja' to sell the} same to^{youth and people addicted to drugs to make easy moneyand} lead a lavish^{life, which would certainly disturbthe publicpeace and} tranquility.^{As mentioned above'the detenu'instead of mending} himself,^{committed similar offence after his releaseon conditionalbail} in the first^{crime.so it is imperativeupon the officers concerned to}

¶106

ARR,J&Lrr.S,A,J wP No.I826/2021

¶107

¶108

pass the order of detention,^{since the acts of tire detenuare} prej udicial to the maintenance^{of public order' The detalning} authority^{had suFficientmaterialto record subjective satisfactionthat} thedetentionofthedetenuWaSnecessarytomaintElinpublicorder and even tempo^{of llfe of the community' The order of detention} does not suffer^{from any illegality. The grounds cf detention'as} indicated in the impugned^{order,are found to be relevant and in tune} with the^provisions of^{the P.D. Act, Sincethe deteruWaSgranted} conditional bail in both^{the cases reliedby the detEriningauthority,} thereisnothingwrongonthepartofthedetainingauthorityin raising an apprehension^{that there is possibility of the detenu} committing similar^{offences,which would again certainlyaffect the} public health at large. The material^{placedon record revealsthat the} detenu was supplied^{with the documentsrelied upon by the detaining} authority in the language^{known to him, i.e., Hindi, besides English'} Therefore, the contention of^{the petitioner that the impugned} detention order^{waspassedwithout serving complettl materlalpapers} to the detenu is unsustainable.^{The subjective satisfaction reached} by the detaining authority^{is not tainted or illegal on any account'} The acts of the detenu^{cannot be effectivelydealt v/ithunderspecial} law.

¶109

Before^parting, as righty^{observed by this Court in Naresh} Singh's case⁽⁷ supra), the^{menaceof drug abuse and proliferation} of drug trade is an open^{secret. Drug abuseis not only confinedto} the urban centres, but^{has even spread to rural areas. It is common} knowledge that drug^{problemsare rampantamong;tthe youth' The} easy availability of drugs^{has distorted the lives o'the many young} men and women in our society.^{In order to ensure a steady supply of}

¶110

nRR, ,J & Dr.SA, J wP No.l826/2021

¶111

¶112

drugs for^{themselves,theseyoung men and women are prone to} commitpettyoffences.Theillegolmoneyearnedinthisactivityfuels the other^{nefarious activities'Therefore,what may patently appear} to be a^{..law and order,, prob|em,on a deeper analysis, emergesaS a} "public order"^{problem' Hence, while dealing with preventive} detention^{cases qua offencescommitted under the NDPS Act' the} Courts^{have to be vigilant with regard to the impact of such offences} on tf,e society^{at large.Thus, the learned counselfor the petitioneris} unjustified^{in claiming that the two cases registeredagainst the} detenu^{shouldbe seen as "law and order"problem and not as a} "public order" Problem'

¶113

Under^{these circumstances, the detainingauthority is justlfied} in passing^{the impugneddetention order' We do not see any meritin} this Writ^{Petition and as such, it is liable to be dismissed'}

¶114