Decided on March 22,2019

Bejjanki Yakambra Chary Appellant
State of Telangana Respondents


A. Rajasheker Reddy, J. - (1.)This Writ Petition is filed assailing the proceedings in C.No. 941/WRC/CSB-XI/2018, dated 20.08.2018 of respondent No. 2, whereby he has ordered the detention of one Bejjanki Swathi, under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act of 1986'), who is the wife of the petitioner (for short, "the detenue"), which is confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.2399, General Administration (Spl.(Law & Order) Department, dated 05.11.2018, as illegal and arbitrary.
(2.)The sum and substance of the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition is that the detenue was falsely implicated in Crime Nos.68 of 2018 and 54 of 2018 of Police Station Rayaparthy and Police Station Wardhannapet, respectively, which were registered on 05.06.2018 against her under Section 20(ii) (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act of 1985') on the complaint given by Sub-Inspector, Rayaparthy Police Station alleging that she is a "Drug Offender" under Section 2(f) of the Act of 1986. She was arrested on 06.06.2018 by the Police, Rayaparthy Police Station. The impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings C.No.941/WRC/CSB-XI/2018, dated 20.08.2018 on the allegation that she indulged in illegal and dangerous activities of peddling of narcotic drugs among innocent people and causing damage to the health and the said act is affecting adversely the maintenance of public order and public health. The order of the 2nd respondent was approved by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.1699, dated 28.08.2018, which is subsequently confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.2399, dated 05.11.2018, basing on the report of the advisory board. Though the detenue was granted bail in both the crimes and not involved in any offences except these two cases, the 2nd respondent passed impugned detention order, without application of mind.
(3.)Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and justified the reasons for passing detention order against detenue.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.