Allowed

Mukesh Kumavath v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Aug 2021WP/8631/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging preventive detention orders passed against detenus accused of crimes like criminal trespass and rioting. The court held that these offences affected specific individuals, constituting a 'law and order' problem rather than 'public order'. Consequently, preventive detention was unnecessary, and the orders were quashed, releasing the detenus.

What did the court decide?

Impugned detention orders and confirmation orders set aside; detenus released forthwith.

Mukesh Kumavath Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH I rr'r I COURT vYv" '^{FOR THE STATEOF TELAN'GANA AT HYDERABAD} (Speciat original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶2

t,loNDAY ,rHE^{slxrEENrHDAY o-l'1Y9usr} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY ONE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE^{HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE A'RAJASHEKER REDDY} AND THE HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER}

¶5

wRtTP ETIT to N NOS 8631 AND 8 649 OF²⁰²¹

¶6

WP NO:^{8631oF 2021}

¶7

Between:

¶8

UJ5;::.:H[:,,1,iJi;,f, !ilili8lEill:ffi^{[3[#31''f'?J'i3i1'*f#:} i;#h;;dr,^{K.V'RansaReddYDistrict'}

...PETITIONER

AND

l The State of^{Telangana, Rep by ChiefSecretary'Secretariat buildinq'} Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Commissioner^{of Police, RachakondaCommissionerateNaredmet'} Malkajgiri,^{Secunderabad.}

¶14

¶15

The Superintendent,^{Central Prison,Cherlapalli'Medchal District'}

¶16

,..RESPONDENTS

¶17

PetitionunderArticle226oftheConStitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe ;i";;;^{t" ir*e a writ, oideror orders more particularly one in the nature writ of} [.;;;;r Corpus^{Under Article226 of the Constitution of lndia directingthe} n"rpo"o""tJ to^{release the Detenu poonamchand Kumavaths/o. BhawarlalJi,} r,o' i. no detained^{in central Prison, cherlapalli,MedchalDistrict by setting} aside the order of^{detention passedby the Respondent No.2vide proceedings} NoOll^pO CELL/^{CCRB/ RCKD/ 2021, dated29-01-2021 and confirmation orders} pu..uobytheRespondentNo.lvideG.o'Rt.No.297'dated:06-02-2021and e .o.nt.ruo.eoa, dated^{07-04-2021, declaring the detention order as illegal,} arbitrary, discriminatory^{and unsustainablein the eye of law as it is contraryto the} Article 21 of the Constitution^{of lndia}

¶18

(prayer is amended as^{per Court Order dt' 16'O8 2021vide lA'No 2 of 2021} in WP No 863112021)

¶19

IA NO:^1U.F2021

¶20

petition under section 151 cpc^{praying th.atin the circumstances stated} in the affidavit^{filed in supiori} "i^{ttpttl'ont"ne Hiqlr Court'nay be pleased to} in"" Jetenu^{i e Po"onam Chard Kumavath S/o} direct the^{Respondents t" t'"i"*"} Bhawarlal^{Ji forthwith ov'"t""ring'-t;;;r.-;".t^.ofdetentionvideproceedings} t;:,i;;ffi^{cer-r-rCcnarnbxo I 2021' dated'zetl1t2021}

¶21

WP^{NO: 8649OF2021}

¶22

Between:

¶23

X.YL:::.:Hff^{I?tlr,3ilr'ei,Tr1E,!"':t'-5ll'35n';"t;'1"":':ffi I''i"3::} ilili?;;d";,^{r,V nanga Reddv District}

¶24

...pE,,oNER

¶25

AND

¶26

1 The State^{of Telangana'Rep by ChiefSecretary'Secretariatbuilding'} Hyderabad,

¶27

2 The Commissioner^of .Police"^{RachakondaCommissionerate'Naredmet'} Malkaigiri^Secunderabao

¶28

The Superintendent'^{Central Prison' Cherlapalli'MedchalDistrict'}

¶29

¶30

...RESPONDENTS

¶31

Petition^{unCer Article 226 of the Cot'?]ly]l:" of lndia pravrngthat in the} circumstances^{stateo in-ihl ?tlo'"it fileotnerewiin' tn" Hign courtmay be} oleased^{to ssue} '^{w''t o'lo'"''"' J'J""} 'o'"I::XiiJl* T";:"ii;::liil;: u m av^{at n} "'-l I i :i::'J^{"d" -} ;^{i c n a n d} .K " li :i:i t'" : 1 l'; ":,^{: t l's : [ # :} s,o-rarn,u,r,"^{Pi unerm Cnl"owho isnow deta]ned rn CentralPrlson'} :.:"11J"il:;i"I:1,'Jn:'i#"'"".1fiq.[ri"',h"'$"ff^{f fl i?i*:} iii","l"iirc,;r021^an(r :";:ffi?)3i,"'i""[ %'.31,i1":;;d'";;i. i^otroqrzozt ' G.O.Rt^No.298,dated discriminatory^and Arricre^{2'1 of the} declaring^{the o"t"nt'ol-'-oio?"' as illegal'} '"uiii"r.v unsustainabre^{in tne e[ ;l;;} ;; ii^ir" "ontiriv'to'tn" Constitution^{of lndia}

¶32

court^{order dated 16 08 2021' viderA'No} 2

¶33

f,'iJ;lii',^F:,1":ffi,1:?;.',ii

¶34

IA NO:1O^F2021

¶35

praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} Petition^{under Section151 CPC} i"n" iigh^{courtmav be pleased to} in the afiidavit^{filed in support of the p} ;;;;r'i;. ",iti"i, Nlnat^cnano @^{Nemi chand} Oitu.t tn"^{n"tpondents to releasethe}

¶36

Kumavath S/o. Kumavath Poonam Chand forthwith by revoking the order of detention vide proceedings No.OB/PD CELL/CCRBiRCKD12021, dated 29-012021 .

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner in both WP's:SRl. MOHD MUZAFFER ULLAH KHAN Counsel for the Respondents in both WP's: SRI.A.MANOJ KUMAR,AGP FOR

¶38

HOME/ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶39

The Court made the following:

¶40

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

¶41

WRIT PETITIO N Nos.863 1 AND 8649 o'f 202L

¶42

co MON O RDER ! (Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther)

¶43

Since the facts of the case and point for determination in both these writ petitions are identical and since the crimes relied upon by the detaining authority for passing the detention orders impugned in both these writ petitions are similar, both these writ petitions are being taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

¶44

Writ Petition Nos.B631 and 8649 of 2O2t are filed challenging the detention orders vide No.07lpD CELL/CCRB/RCKD/2021 and No.OB/PD CELL/CCRB/RCKD12O21 , of even date, dated Zg.O1,2O2t, passed by the respondent No.2-Com m issioner of police, Rachakonda Co m m issionerate, respectively, whereby, the detenus viz.,poonam Chand Kumavath S/o. Bhawarlal Ji and Nihal Chand @ Nemi Chand Kumawat S/o. Kumavath poonam Chand. were detained under Section 3(2) of The Telangana preventive Detention Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986), and the consequential confirmation orders vide G.O.Rt.Nos.B68 and 869, General Administration (Spl. Law & Order) Department, of even date, dated 07.O4.ZO2l, passed by the principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana.

¶45

Heard Sri Mohd. Muzaffer Ullah Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in both these writ petitions, Sri A.Manoj Kumar, learned Assistant Government pleader for Home appearing for the learned

¶46

¶47

Additional^{Advocate Generalfor the respoadentsin both these writ} petitlons and Perused^{the record'}

¶48

The case^{of the petitionersin both these writ petitionsis that} basing^{on five criminal cases i'e' Crime Nos'198'950' 990' 1004 and} 1005 of^{2O2O of JawaharnagarPolice Station'registered against the} detenu-Poonam^{Chand Kumavath' in the year 2020 and four criminal} cases^{i,e., Crime Nos 950' 990' 1004 and 1005 of 2020 of} Jawaharnagar^{Police Station'Rachakonda Com misslonerate'} registered^{against the detenu-Nihal Chand @ Nemi Chand Kumawat'} in the^{year 2020, the respondentNo'2 passed the impugned} detention^{orders of even date' dated 29'01 2021'According to} resPondent^{No.2, thedetenus are 'Goondas',as they havebeen} indulging^{in organizedland grabbing and Goondaism in the limits of} Jawaharnagar^{Police Station of RachakondaCommissionerateand} thereby^{creating a sense of fear and feelingof insecurity in the minds} of the^{general public and adversely affectingthe public order apart} from disturbing^{peaceand tranquility'Subsequently'the impugned} detention^{orders were confirmedby the Government'vide} G.O.Rt.Nos.B6B^{and 869' of even date' dated 07 04'2021'}

¶49

The learned^{counsel for the petitioners would contend that the}

¶50

5, impugned^{detention orders are passed on flimsygroundswithoutanY} basis,^{in a mechanicalmanner and without applicationof mind} Already^{criminallaw was set into motion againstlhe detenus' The} detenus^{were granted conditional bail by the Courts concernedin all} the cases^{relied upon by the detainingauthority But they were again} sent to^{jail by invokingthe draconian preventivedetention laws on} the apprehension^{that there is imminent possibility of their indulging} \r/ .

¶51

in similar offences, which is unjustified.^{The allegedcrimes do not} add up to^"disturbing the^{public order" and they are confined viithln} the ambit and scope of the^{word "law and order". Sincethe offences} alleged are under the^{Indian Penal Code and Special law, the detenus} can certainly be tried and convicted underthe^{Penal Code and Special} law. Thus, there was no need for the^{detainingauthorityto invoke} the draconian^preventive detention^{law against the detenus.Hence,} the impugned orders tantamount to^{colourableexercise of power.} The rmpugned orcers are legally unsustainable^{and uitimately, prayed} to allow the Writ Petitlons, as^prayed for.

¶52

On the other hand, learned Assistant^{GovernmentPleader for} Home appearing for the respondents supported^{the impugned orders} and subrnittecl that the detenus are^{'Goondas',The detenusalong} with others were indulging in organized land^grabbing and^goondaism in the limits of Jawaharnagar Police Station of^Rachakonda Commissionerate. The unlawful activities of the detenus^{created a} large scale fear and^panic among the^{general public} and^adversely affecting the public order. Since the detenus were^granted conditional bail in the crimes relied upon by the detaining authority, the apprehension of the detaining authority that there is^imminent possibility of the detenus committing similar offences in future, is not misconceived. Therefore, the detaining authority was legally^justified in passing the impugned detention orders. Further, the Advisory Board rendered its opinion that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenus and on considering the same along with the entire rnaterial, the Government confirmed the impugned detention orders vide G.O.Rt.Nos.868 and 869, of even date, dated 07.04-2027 Ail

¶53

¶54

themandatoryrequirementsWerestrictlyfolIowedbythedetaining authority while^{passing the impugned detention orders The} impugned orders^{are legally sustainable and ultimately'prayed to} dismiss the Writ^Petitions.

¶55

T.Inviewofthesubmissionsmadebyboththesides,thepoint that arises^{for determination in these Writ Petitions is:}

¶56

"Whether the^{impugned detention orders vide} No.O7/PD CELL/CCRB/RCKD/2O21^{and No'08/PD} CELL/CCRB/RCKD/2021,^{of even date,dated} 2g,O7,2O21,^{passed by the respondentNo'2 and the} consequential^{confirmation orders} vide G.O.Rt.Nos.868^{and869, ofeven date, dated} 07,O4,2O27,^{passed by the Principal Secretaryto} Government, General^{Administration (Spl' (Law&} Order)) Departmentl^{Governmentof Telanganat are} tiable to be^{set aside?"}

¶57

POINT:

¶58

S.Incatenaofcases,theHon'bleSupremeCourthadclearly opined that^{there is a vastdifferencebetween"law and order"and} ''publicorder.,.Theoffencescommittedagainstaparticu|arindividual fallwithintheambitof..lawandorder,,andwhenthepublicatlarge is adversely^{affectedby the criminal activitiesof a person' such} activities of^{that personare said to disturb the public order'} Moreover, individual^{cases can be dealt with by the criminaljustice} system.^{Therefore,there is no need for the detainingauthorityto} invoke the draconian^{preventive detention laws against an indlvidual'} Hence, according^{to the Hon'bleApex Court' the detaining authority} should be^{wary of invokingthe immense power under the Act}

¶59

¶60

9, In Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Biharl, the Hon,ble Supreme Court has, in fact, deprecated the invoking of the preventive law in order to tackle a law and order problem. It was observed that every breach of public peace and every violation of law may create a 'larar and order' problem, but does not necessarily create a problem of 'public order', The distinction has to be borne in mind in view of what has been stated in the grounds of detention.

¶61

In Kanu Biswas v. State of West Benga12, the Hon,ble Apex Court, rnrhile discussing the meaning of word 'public order,, held that the question rnrhether a man has only Committed a breach of^,law and order' or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the 'public order', is a question of degree and extent of the reach of the act upon the Society.

¶62

In the present case, basing on five crimes registered against the detenu-Poonam Chand Kumavath in W.p.No.8631 of 2021, the detaining authority has passed the impugned detention order, dated 29.01.2027. We shall present them in a tabular Form the date of occurrence, the date of registration of FIR, the offence complained of and its nature, such as bailable/non-bailable or cognizable/non_ coqnizable.

¶63

fi.^c.imetro	Dateof Occurrence	Dateof registration ofFIR	Offences	Nature
				Sec.447IPC-Bai abte/
19S,2iila.1 laf,rit^j,:t.r-ta:g.:l		25A2.2C2A	447, 427IPC & Sec.3ofPDPP Act	Cllnzdbl,l 5,:-.427iDCBarab e/
950/202 0of I2lawa harnagar r-.-89	a512.2A2A	07.12.2020	^{447, 427lPC &} Sec.3ofPDpp	Baable Sec.447iPCBaabe/ Cognizable

¶64

'^AIR{.966 sc 740 '1rozz;lt^scc 831

¶65

¶66

A.l Sec. 427 IPC Barlab e,/
Non-Coqnrzab e
SeC 3 PDPP ACt
Bar dble
Sec.447 IPC
Ba lab e/
5ec.447, 427 ,
Cog nlza ble
9o0 2020 or
p||or lo 186 r/w 34 IPC &
I la,!aharnaga' rr5 8.12)O?A 19.L2.2420 Sec,3 of PDPP Sec.427, Bailable/ Non-186 IPC'
Act
Cog nizable
1 Sec.3 PDPP Act-Bailable
Sec.186 IPC-
Ba ilable/Non-cog n izable
1004/2020 of Sec.186,353,332 Sec.353,332 IPC- Non-
Jawaharnagar 24.12.2420 24.72.2424 747 ,148 t/vt
baila ble/ cog niza ble
l. PS 1208 & 149 IPC
Sec.147, 148 IPC-
Balla ble/ coqn izable
Sec.307,332,333,353
lPC- Non-
Sec.307,332, baila ble/cog n iza ble
1005/2020 of 333,353, s04, Sec.504 IPC-
5 Jawaharnagar 24 .r2.2420 24.12.2420 L47 , L48 rlw Ba ilable/Non -cog nlzable
PS 1208 & 149 IPC Sec.147, 148 IPC
Ba rla ble/cog nlzable

¶67

Sofaras the detenu-Nihal^{Chand @ Nemi Chand Kumavathln Wrlt} Petition No.B649 of^{2O2l is concerned,the detaining authorlty,} basing on four^{crimes registered against him, passed the impuqned} detention order,^{dated 29.01 202I We shall present them in a} tabular form^{the date of occurrence,the date of registrationof FIR,} theoffencecomplainedofanditSnature,SuchaSbailable/nonbailable or cognizable/non-cognizable'

¶68

Date of
s. Crime No. Date of registration Offences Nature
No. Occurrence of FIR 1
Sec. 447 IPC -Bailable/
cognizable
9sOl2A2A af 447 , 427 rPC & Sec. 427 IPC- Bailable/
1 Ja,vaharnagar 05 .72.2A24 a7 . 12.2A24 Sec.3 of PDPP
Non-cog nizable
PS Act
Sec.3 PDPP Act
Ba ila b le
5e c.147 IPC
Ba rla b Ic/
S., {4,'. 4. 7
gf z a llic
99A/2024 af
Pnor to
2 Ja,!aharnagar 19.12.2024 19. i2 2020 Se. 16a I ,',. ..ri l,,l ?DPP Ila a, .:)(: c 427, LSir Ii)i.
PS rra rlaDIe/ Non
A.t
1^ gn za tlie
Se c.3 PDPP Act-Ba a bl{]
>.. l80 ): :;. S^, t8o lr.
1004/2020 or
la!!aharna!lai 21.12.2424 24.12.2A2a 147,1,18 r/w ilaL ab e,lNon''oqll zatll!:
PS 12OB & i'19 IPC Sec l5l, ll2 IP( Nor

¶69

¶70

¶71

ba ilable/ cog niza ble
Sec.147, 148 IPC-
Ba ilable/ cog niza ble
t Sec.3O7. 332,333,353
I PC- Non -
5ec.307,332, baila ble/cognizable
100 5/20 20 of 333,353,504, Sec.504 IPC-
4 I awa harna gil I 24.72 2024 24.12.2020 Ba lable/Non -cog n iza ble
r47 , L48 r /\N
PS 1208 & 149 IPC Sec.147, 148 IPC-
Ba lable/cog n lzable

¶72

12, As seen^{from the materialplacedon record,all the crimes relied} upon by the^{detaining authorityfor preventively detaining the detenus} relatetocriminaltrespass,mischief,obstructingpublicservantin discharge of^{public functions, voluntarilycausinghurt, assault or} criminal Force to^{deter public servantfrom dischargeof his duty,} attempt to murder,^{rioting, armedwith deadly weapon etc'The} detenus were arrested^{in connectionwith the alleged offencesand} subsequently, they^{movedbail applications in all the crimesand the} Courtsconcernedgrantedbailstothem.Underthesecircumstances, theapprehensionofthedetainingauthoritythatthedetenuswould indulge in similar^{prejudicial activities,unlessthey are prevented from} doing so by an appropriate^{order of detention, is highlymisplaced' It} is the bounden duty of^{the Police to inform the learnedPublic} prosecutor about the conduct of the detenus and to^{handover the} entirecaserecOrdaVailableagainstthedetenus.Thepoliceare supposed to be vigilant^{in collectingthe wholedata against the} detenus and furnish the^{same to the Public Prosecutorto defeat the} bail application/s of the^{detenus.In the instantcases, since the} detenus are^granted bail^{by the courts concerned, in the event it is} found that the detenus are involved^{in furthercTimes, the prosecution} 1i caq apprise the same to^{the Court concerned and seek cancellation of} bail. Ivloreover, the criminal^{law wasalready set into motion against} the detenus. Since the detenus^{have allegedlycommittedoffences}

¶73

¶74

¶75

punishable under the^{IndianPenal Code and Special law' the said} crimes can be^{effectively dealt with under the provtsionsof the Penal} Code and the^{Special law and there was no need for the detaininq} authority to^{invokedraconianpreventive detention laws The} detaining authority^{cannotbe permitted to subvert' supplant or} substitute the^{punitive law of land, by ready resort to preventive} detention.

¶76

13.Here,itisapttostatethattheactswhicharesimilarinnature' but committed^{in different contexts and circumstances'might cause} differentreactions.Inonecase,itmightaffectspecificindividuals only, and^{therefore would amountto 'law and order' problem only'} whlle in another,^{it might affect the 'public order' Some infractions} of law may^{lead to disturbanceof 'law and order" but every infractron} of law does^{not necessarilyresult in'public disorder" In the instant} five cases,^{grave as the offences may be, in the given circumstances} oFthecase,theyarecommittedagainstparticularindividualsbutnot the^{general public at large.Hence,no inference of disturbanceof} public order can be^{drawn. The subjectcases can certainly be tried} under the^{normal criminal law and, if convicted, can certainly be} punishedbytheCourtoflaw.Thus,theinstantfivecasesdonotfall within the ambit^{of the words "public order" or "disturbance of public} order".^{Instead,they fall within the scope of the words"law and} order,,.^{Hence,thereWaS no need for the detainingauthority to paSS} the impugned^{detentionorders' For the foregoing reasons' the} impugned orders^{are legally unsustainableand are liable to be set} aside.

¶77

¶78

L4. In the result, both the^{Writ Petitions are allowed. Theimpugned} detention orders vide No.O7lPD^{CELL/CCRB/RCKDl202Land} No,OB/PD CELL/CCRB/RCKDl2O2t,^{of even date, dated 29'01'2021,} passed by the respondent No.2, and the^{consequentral confirmation} orders vide G.O.t{t.Nos.B68^{and 869, GeneralAdministration(Spl} (Law & Order)) Department, of even^{date, dated 07.04'2027,passed} by the Principal^{Secretary to Government, GeneralAdministration} (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Telangana,^{are herebyset aside'} The respondents are directed^{to set the detenus, namelyPoonam} Chand Kumavath S/o.^{BhawarlalJi and Nihal Chand @ Nemi Chand} Kumawat S/o. Kumavath^{PoonamChand, at liberty forthwith, if they} are no longer required in^{any other criminal case.}

¶79

The Miscellaneous Petitions,^{if any, pendingin this Writ Petition} shall stand closed There shall^{be no order as to costs.}

¶80

SD/. K.VENKAIAFI REGISTRAR ASSISTANT

¶81

//TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶82

To 1 one cc ro S' ryIq y[1*::Xl.T,Il,Tiii['S[,:T?:1ry:::^!:Y') t ? rwo ccs^{lo "re GP for Home''lYl';:;} ;;;,; f or the^{state of Telangana} 6 +;:^{EE. .ttt AduocateGeneral'High coufl t}

¶83

+. !o*u"to^copies

¶84