THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE [ENTITY] W.P.NOS.37557, 37571, 37583 AND [SECTION]77 OF 2018 COMMON ORDER (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice [ENTITY])
The issue involved in all these writ petitions is common and the respective detenus are involved in same offences and are also accused in same crimes. The 1st respondent - Commissioner, passed individual orders of detention on 24-03-2018, with identical reasons, and they were confirmed by the Government vide orders dated 03.05.2018. Hence all the writ petitions are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The sponsoring authority furnished information to the detaining authority - 1st respondent, stating that the detenus in all these writ petitions, are property offenders, falling within the definition of 'goonda' under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (for short 'the Act') and that they are engaging in unlawful acts along with their associates, all hailing from Tamil Nadu, and indulging in the offences of theft of cash and other valuables from the owners of two and four wheelers, by diverting their attention in public places, and thereby creating large scale fear and panic among the people, which is adversely affecting the maintenance of public order. The sponsoring authority further informed that the detenus were involved in five cases viz., [CASE NUMBER] under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] of Khammam III Town Police Station and that on interrogation, voluntarily confessed to have committed four more offences vide (1) [CASE NUMBER] under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] of Khammam III Town Police Station, (2) [CASE NUMBER] under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT], (3) [CASE NUMBER] under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] and (4) [CASE NUMBER] under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] of Khammam II Town Police Station. Thus, the detenus are creating a sense of insecurity in the minds of general public and have been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and disturbing the peace, tranquility and social harmony in the society. Therefore, the sponsoring authority, sought the detaining authority to pass orders of preventive detention under [SECTION] of the Act.
3. The 1st respondent - [ENTITY], who is the detaining authority, considering the material on record, recording his subjective satisfaction, passed the impugned orders of preventive detention dated 24.03.2018. The Government, under [SECTION] of the Act, approved the same on 31.03.2018. Subsequently, the matters were referred to the Advisory Board constituted under [SECTION] of the Act, which, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the detenus, submitted reports dated 23.04.2018, holding that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenus. The Government, considering the reports of the Advisory Board, and the material on record, and in exercise of jurisdiction under [SECTION] read with [SECTION] of the Act, confirmed the impugned orders of detention on 03-05-2018, and directed that the detenus shall be continued in preventive detention for a period of twelve months from the date of their arrest. For setting aside the orders of detention, and for release of detenus, the present writ petitions have been filed.
4. The 1st respondent - [ENTITY], filed counter affidavits, stating the details of cases in which the detenus are involved and justifying the detention orders and seeking for dismissal of the writ petitions.
5. Sri [ENTITY], learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions contend that the impugned orders of detention, were passed without application of mind and the crimes referred to above, were foisted against the detenus. He submits that the detaining authority has recorded his subjective satisfaction in a mechanical manner, without appreciating the material available on record. He stated that three bail applications of detenus were rejected and though bails were granted fourth time, as they were unable to furnish sureties, they were not released from jail. He states that if the detenus indulge in similar activities even after release on bail, then detaining authority may be justified in passing orders of preventive detention. If the petitioners commit any further offences, after release on bail, police can file applications seeking for cancellation of bail orders. He states that these aspects have not been considered before passing the detention orders. He further submits that detenus hail from Tamil Nadu and they were not furnished with true translations of the material taken into consideration by the detaining authority, in the language known to them, before passing the orders of detention and this amounts to violation of mandatory requirement under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and thereby affecting their right of making effective representation. He further contends that in the detention orders, the 1st respondent - Commissioner of Police, has not specified the period of detention and this vitiates the detention orders. He contends that the Government, without appreciating the above aspects in proper perspective, confirmed the same. On these grounds, he sought to set aside the impugned orders of detention.
6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Home, submits that as the activities of the detenus are detrimental to the maintenance of public order, the detaining authority, recording his subjective satisfaction, passed the impugned orders of detention and the Government on reappraisal of the entire material, confirmed the same and that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority, may not be interfered by this court. He further submits that the detenus were furnished with all the material relied on by the detaining authority, both in English and Tamil languages in the presence of jail authorities and the detenus also signed on such material. In support of this submission, learned Government Pleader produced the necessary material along with counter affidavits. Therefore, he submits that the ground raised by the petitioners in this regard, is factually incorrect. He further submits that though the period of detention was not mentioned in the order of detention, the Government, while confirming the orders of detention, specified the period and hence, it cannot be said that period of detention is not mentioned. With these submissions, the writ petitions are sought to be dismissed.
7. In view of the rival contentions, the issue that falls for our consideration is whether the impugned orders of detention dated 24-03-2018, as confirmed by the Government Orders dated 03-05-2018, warrants any interference?
8. From the material on record, it could be seen that the sponsoring authority placed information before the 1st respondent - detaining authority, with regard to unlawful acts of detenus. As per the said information, the modus operandi of the detenus is that they along with their associates, used to throw some currency notes on the road and divert the attention of the owners of two and four wheelers, who park their vehicles there, and tell them that the notes fell from victim's person, and when the victims bend to pick those notes, the detenus along with their associates, would commit theft of valuables from vehicles of victims and run away. Against the detenus, five crimes involving the offences under [SECTION] of [ACT], which are referred to above, were registered. Considering the said unlawful activities which the detenus are repeating, which has the effect of creating a sense of insecurity in the minds of general public, the detaining authority, came to the satisfaction that their activities would fall within the definition of 'goonda' as defined under [SECTION] of the Act, and are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He further recorded his satisfaction that the ordinary laws, under which the detenus are booked, are not sufficient to deal with, and the provisions of the Act are required to be invoked to detain them and to curb their unlawful activities. In view of these circumstances, it cannot be said that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority is without any application of mind. In the absence of any exceptional circumstances, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority, based on the material available on record, cannot be interfered with by this court.
9. Further, the detenus, in their fourth attempt, could obtain bail and as the sureties were not furnished, they were not released. However, as the bails were granted, the detenus may secure sureties and there is every likelihood of their release. The detaining authority, considering their antecedent activities, found that after release, there is imminent possibility of their committing similar offences, which are detrimental to public order, and, therefore, they are required to be detained. The Apex Court in the decision reported in [PRECEDENT], held that "if the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied on cogent material that there is likelihood of his release and in view of his antecedent activities which are proximate in point of time he must be detained in order to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities, the detention order can be validly made even in anticipation to operate on his release". In view of the judgment of the Apex Court, the circumstances taken into consideration by the detaining authority, while passing the impugned orders of detention, warrants no interference.
10. The other ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is with regard to non-supply of papers to detenus, affecting their right of making representation. In the counter affidavits filed by the 1st respondent in all these case, it is categorically stated that detenus were served with the detention order, grounds of detention both in English and Tamil languages on 25-03-2018 in the presence of the Jailor, Central Prison, Warangal and the detenus acknowledged the receipt of the same, duly signing on each page and the Jailor attested the same. Along with the counter affidavits, the 1st respondent filed the material served on the detenus. This has not been denied by the petitioners by filing any reply affidavits. In view of these facts and circumstances, the ground raised by the petitioners in this regard, is an after thought, and hence rejected. (1989)4 SCC 418
11. The next ground raised by the petitioners is that as the orders of detention does not specify the period of detention, as stipulated under the Act, the impugned detention orders are liable to be set aside. This ground also has also no legs to stand, for the reason that the Government on reappraisal the entire material and also considering the report of the Advisory Board, in exercise of jurisdiction under [SECTION], confirmed the impugned orders of detention passed by the 1st respondent and specified the period of detention of twelve months from the date of their detention. Even otherwise, the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT], held that non-mention of period of detention in the order, is not fatal to the order and the detention in such case, has to be taken for a maximum prescribed period.
12. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders of detention, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent - Government, and the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
13. Interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
[ENTITY],CJ
[ENTITY],J DATE: 12 02 2019 AVS (1990)2 SCC 456