Pawar Tulsi Ram, v. The State Of Telangana,

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.41616 of 2018 ORDER: (Per The Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader in this writ petition filed challenging the preventive detention order issued by the competent authority in terms of the provisions of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986; hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. 2.

The material papers including the detention order as well as its confirmation by the State Government, after receipt of opinion of the Advisory Committee, show that the detaining authority had before him different materials disclosing the different acts, which are attributed to the detenu, as well as different criminal cases on different counts and the fact that bail applications were likely to be allowed. The modus operandi of the detenu is demonstrated with reference to the different cases, to the satisfaction of the detaining authority. The order of preventive detention has, therefore, been issued on subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority on the basis of the materials on record and inferential conclusions being arrived at to form the foundation for the detention order under the Act.

The detention order as well as the confirmation order notice that there are atleast 22 instances, which have been registered as criminal cases, and proceedings are going on.

permitted to be at large. On examination of the materials, we are satisfied that the impugned detention order is issued on fair and due application of mind by the competent detaining authority and the materials show that the detaining authority arrived at subjective satisfaction of the grounds to make the detention order on the basis of the materials and inferential conclusions as are available on record. We also see that the State Government has affirmed the detention order on the same set of reasons, with the opinion of the Advisory Committee.

3.

We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned detention order.

4.

In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.

______________________________________ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ __________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J January 2, 2019.

V V