hiilll]a v. State of Telang ana, ReP. bY its Chief Sec

Mr.La;<rnaiah Kalchanr' learned r:ounsel appearing for the petib'oner' Mr.Swaroopoorila'^t:.,1:*o:',1,r"["ifl"r"T:"#]:l: rePresenting the learned Ad Pleader ORDER: $ter Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhotlctchoryo) The present writ petition has been frled by the wife of the 1 . detenu against arr order of detention dated 25'll'2O24 passed by the respondent No'2/District Collector & District Magistrate' Warangal. The petitioner also challenges an order dated 23.r2.2o24passed by the respondent No.l/State of relanga,a, represented by its Chief Secretar-v' General Administration (Law & Order) Department' conflrlning the detention of the petitioner's husband.

2. The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenu' who is presently Iodged at the central prison, cherraparly, Medchar-Malkajgiri -l 4 ",.r.r!,),?;i*If#;! Distri(:t. 1:,r f cre Lhis Court to set aside the imptrgne,l detention order irs u'eI as the confirmation order, and rek:ase of t]le detenu.

3. 'lh: rnpugned order dated 25. 11.2024 passr:d by the respond(:nl No.2/District Collector & D; strir:t Magistrate. Warangal, I )ntains the grounds of detention. The d,ltenrl has been chargerl rvi[:t engaging in the business of possessicn and sale of Illicitly Disti led Liquor (,IDLJ in contravention .f the pr rvisions of The Telarrgzura prohibition Act, 1995 (,the 1995 1\ct,) as lrcll as The Telalgana I,r'evention of Dangerous Activities; of Bo tt_leggers, Dacoits D.r r g-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Tra.fic Offenders Lald-Gralrbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide )ffenders, Fertiliser ,')ffrrnders, Food Adulteration, Offenders, Fz ke l)ocument Offenders Sir:]reduled Commodities Offenders, Fore st (.)1t'€ nders, Sexual ( )ffenders, Offenders, Explosive Gaming St:b564ra." Offenders, A r r-rs Offenders, Cyber Crime Offen der:; Collar or F na-rcial Offenders Act, 19g6 (.the l9g6 Act,t ar d White

4. Thrt :mptrgned detention order a-lso contains the pu rticulars of cases .-er:js;lered against the detenu under the prorisiorrs of the 1986 Act.r.' c s,rrbsequent cases registered under ihe crov.sions of 5 MB,J At BRiIR,J w.P.No.2733 ol 2o25 the 1995 Act. The conflrmation order dated 23 '12 '2024 reiterates the hndings of the District Collector & District Magistrate' Warangal, ald directing detention of the detenu for a period of 12 months from the date of detention (25'll '20241 The Facts leadi ns to the Impu ed Order:

5. A case uide Crime Oct;urrence Report (CORlNo'99 of 2024 was registered against the detenu ot Ol 'O4 '2024 under section 7A read with section 8(e) of the 1995 Act' consequent upon 20 litres of liquor being seized from the detenu' The seized liquor was atalyzed by the Chemical Examiner of the Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Warangal on O5'O7 '2024' The Chemical Examiner opined that the seized substance was "IDL- which is unht for human consumption and injurious to health On 1'9 'lO '2024 ' a second case was registered under the provisions of the 1995 Act and 10 litres of Iiquor was qeized from the detenu On 28'lO'2024' theChemica]Examineranalyzedthesampleandopinedthatthe seized IDL was unht for human consumption and injurious to health. On 26'10'2024' a third COR was registered against the detenu upon seizure of 5 litres of IDL' On 28 '1rO '2024 ' the I 6 *,,#i;i*!Hf;! Chernir::tl Examiner opined that the , seize<l ItrL v,as unfit for humarL ,:r rrsumption and injurious to health. (h 28. 1O.2O24, a fourtt rl()Ft was registered against the detenu u6,on ;eizure of 1O litres ol ttrJ_. On 29.1O.2024, the Chemical Examiner opined that the seiz,-c IDL was unfit for human consumption and injurious to healttr. 6 Thc ;rnpugned detention order was passed Collecr or. dr J)istrict Magistrate, Warangal, on 2 5. i confirn-rerl 5y the State Government on 23.12.2024. b1, :he District . 2 0. 14 arld was Arzumen;s-rn ade onbehalf of the Parti CS aPpearing for the petiti,tner sul)mits that form the ba:;is for constitute disturbilnce ot. public 2(al of the 1986 r\ct. Counsel

7. Lea -n e cl counsel the a[le,3ec crimes, which impugned rl e t:ntion order, do not order as :lefrred under section argues th,rt ;ossession or distribution of liquor the dehrritro:-r of 1aw and order, as opposed to public orri,.r, '1nder the 19g6 Act Counsel further subrnits that the deter u cit .r be produced before ald punished by a c< mpetent Court of larr l.;jr ce the criminal justice System has already been set u'ou ld I rll within t€ nance of 'm€iin =-".?3B'tQuEB!l 7 MB"' & ERMR'J W.P.No.2733 oJ 2O25 in motion. Counsel submits that Investigation Offlrcers failed to take any steps under section a lA(a) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, despite the detenu allegedly being involved in similar offences' Counsel further submits that relevant material was not placed before the Advisory Board and that the impugned order was passed solely on the earlier cases registered against the detenu. Counsel also argues that the detention order was based on mere apprehension ald lacked concrete evidence in support of the conclusion that the detenu is a habitual offender' Counsel reliesondecisionstourgethattheSupremeCorrrtaswellasa Co-ordinate Bench of this Court have set aside similar detention ordersonthedifferencebetween.publicorder,arrd.lawarrdorder,.

8. The leamed Special Government Pleader ('SGP') appearing for the respondentNos' 1-3 i e'' the State of Telangana' the District Magistrate, Warangal' and the Superintendent' Central Prison' Cherlapally, submits that the impugned order was passed under section 2(a) and 2(b) of the 1986 Act' The SGP argues that four cases were registered against the detenu for the offence under section 7A read with section 8(e) of the 1995 Act and that the Chemical Examiner, upon analysis' confrrmed that the seized i 8 substarrct o be IDL which is unfit for humzm consrrmption ald injuriorrs rr public health. . MB,J & BRMR,J W.p.^ro.2133 ol2O2S

9. T rt: tlGp relies on the recent decisions o1_ the SuPreme Court includir g the case of pesala Nookaraju Vs. Gouen m.ert oJ. Andhra Prade.;h 'tc contend that the seized samples u.hicir rve.re found to be untlt fr;r human consumption, constitute a(__tivit y pr ejudicial to the mzLil rtr:r rrrce of public order, thereby justifying hr: rletention of the marrute r:turer/seller of the liquor. It is arguerl that the Detain nr.1 .A r thority duly considerer.r the material on .ecord ard arrived a. I subjective satisfaction of the necessit.r 1or detaining the petitionrr and that there is no scope of inlerfe"enc,: with the rmpugnec! or C er. Habeas (l ,r,r, san d tive Detention:

10. "Fabeas Corpus" literally means "have lhe bod.,, ald is directed l(. llnr person detaining the other ald reqrrrrcs the first person to :rc cluce the body of the prisoner at a der;ignirted time and place [ogether with the cause of the detenLon -o Le Court. The Court cil -l issue the Writ to have the body of the detained t2023 t4 SC(. 64 1 I 9 MB.J 6L BRMR'J w-P-No-i793 of 2025 person to be brought before the Court in order to determrne whether the detention is legal or illegal: Corpus Juris Seanndum' The purpose of the Writ is to obtain the production of the individual before the Court or a Judge for securing the liberty of the subject and by affording a-n effective release from unlawful or unjustilrabledetentionwhetherinprisonorprivatecustody.The WritofHabeasCorpusisapowerfulWritgivenbytheConstitution to every man who is unlar' iully detained and is therefore al extraordinary remedy: Nenauath Bujji Vs' State of Telangana2 ' 11 TheWritofHabeasCorpusisanextraordinaryremedywhich guarantees has been included as one of the Constitutional 32 of tt:.e upholding indMdual liberty under Articles 226 and Constitution of India' The Writ is to safeguard the freedom of an individual against illegal detentton and ensures Procedural justice to a persoh who has been unlawfully detained' The Writ is a judicial commald directed to a jailer to Produce the named prisoner together with the legal cause of detention' It is well settled that a Writ of Habeas Corpus will not lie where the detention or imprisonment is in accordance with law" Home Secretary prison) 2 2C,24 SCC OnLine SC 367 10 *.,.,,ff;.i*!fff;"" Vs. Fr. 'iitt,lbr trr'zsha:. The Writ of Habeas Coi-pus, rs il prerogative Writ n l)ngland, issued by the King against LLis ofhr:e_s to compel them rr, r:xercise their functions properly arrd whcre o.dinary legal remec ir ; ,r -,-. insufficierrt: Halsbury,s Lau.ts of E,nglc ncl. Thelegality of an1 f .rnr of detention may be challenged under corrmon law by an apph lat on for the Writ of Habeas Corpus. The question which the Ccu' t 'turst arswer is whether any right of the c etelu has been violateC ilr i,:h would warrant an order directing his/ rer release from pri.or-r Habeas Corpus is ess,ntially a procedutLi Writ and deals r,,ir h tl e machinery of justice ald not the strbst,rntive law: Kanu Sor, tlat Vs. Distict Magistrqte, Darjeeling4.

12. concernecr ;r I thority from dtir g .n act Prc,.r.ntive Detention, as the name entails, prer'entrj a person which is apprehended on th __ p: :rt of the by way of a subjective asses.sntent of the misconcu::t cf the detenu arrd the likelihoo,l o. th e detenu committinrl :r repeating the act which would adversrelv alfect the maintenlr cr :f public order 3 (2O2O) 14 S:t(_ t,)l { 1974 SCC ()nt,roe SC 26 I 11 MB,J & BRMR'J W.P.No.2733 of 2025

13. A distinction should also be made between preventive detention and punitive detention' While preventive detention is to prevent commission of an act or a crime on the basis of a reasonable apprehension' punitive detention is to punish a person for something he/she has already done' An order of preventive detentionmaybemadewithorwithoutprosecutionandin anticipation or after discharge or even after acquittal' Pendency of prosecution is not a bar to an order of preventive detention; the reverse is also true: Haradhan SaLn Vs' The State of West Bengals ' 14. The concept of preventive detention takes colour from the 19g6 Act and particularly section 2(a) of the said Act read with Explanation thereto' ,2(o). .actirLg in anu monner preiudiciat to the uhen a boot-legger' m(Tintenonce of pubtic i'd"'" ^.ac,nt a*goff;;"' a goonda' an immo^rgl traffic o da@it, ' ;;.;*:;,-mnalc'oan"'' a spuious s'eed ofknder' an 'a- Insecticide Of|enai'- Adulter(ttion ollender' a Fcike Doo)ment 'Wnder' -St*u"t Schedutedco*^oiii"offeruJer'aForestoffender'a Offender' an Explosiue Gaming Offender'" o- Cnme Substances Offenaer' an 'u7ns Offender' a 'Ca^b3r olfender ona o viiitt coltar oi Finonctal -offen'der engaged or is making preporations for engaging' in ang prl'tititra' olfenden Food a "'a s (1975) 3 SCC 198 I2 IIB,J & BRMR,J W.P-I|b.21as oj 2O,s L.tl. l is actiuities as sucll uhich affect aduerselu, ctr are ,:,,;,:,: ,. a,ffect aduersetg, the iaintenanle .,i'rr:,rf,,i )-t,t t,nution: For the purpose qf this clause pubjtc or.ler .htt t he deemed to haue been allected u au"j, ,"tt,,r'-", 1.,,,, !." deemed likelg to t. ,g..t"a- oa-r;;;;:; ir,:, ,,1i.,. il ong of the actiuitie" iJ ,ny "I ,;;'r:",:,'; ntilrd to in this clause o"t""r, or in dire':tlu, is (Ltltsulg or carcarated. ,o o o r . feetins .f ir,, ".rnff :#:s HT; ":::lt;: ri; c,, u i t .t "pi",t ariS)i * ., I se.c.tio1 thereof or o graue wide )- Duhlic healtl,t;' l'. tt,€

15. l'h , ri,: ention of a person belonging to any ol the categories of offerLd.,r; riamed in the Act would be justifi,:d it_ thr, detaining authoritr i:, i ble to estabtish that the detention rs nec rssary not only b,y r,,:rrj,) 1 of the past acts/offences commit ted b1, t he person but alsc, I n i ,ticipation of the repetition of the said acts in future or even a 'cr: i r,l of insecrrrity among the general putrlic r,r a sense of alarnr ln lts part by reason of the recurrenc,l of the act. The degrel of s;criousness, the breach of offence as u,_.ll a.; the risk to public h,lal Jr are all brought within the ambit c,f th,: jus,tihcation for preve r (ivt: cetention. t --Frya*!:w*&tw'l 13 IB.J &, BRMR,J w-P.No-i133 of 2025 Te The The Te1an D Dru ers S of Dan G b S F G o s r e e Arms S C 5 S tiCS of Boot- d F D s S b o 1995 and The Telangana 16. The Telangarra Pro\ibition Act' 1986 form Part of the Prevention of Dalgerous Activities Act' impugned order of detention and we hence propose to deal with the relevance of these statutes in the context of the present dispute' The avowed object of The Telangala Prohibition Act' 1995 is the prohibition of consumption of intoxicating drugs which is injurious to health except for medicinal purposes The enactment of the statute was considered necessary in the wake of an alarmlng increase in consumption of alcoholic drinks' especially Arrack' despite the Government banning its sale on 01'10'1993' Arrack is defrned as an Asiar alcoholic beverage like Rum which is distiiled from a fermented mash of malted rice with toddy or molasses: Merriam-Webster dictlorrary' Several State Governments had l4 banner MB,J & BRMR.J w.P.rlo.21a3 of 20,s i\ r'ack in an effort to prevent poor people ,vho are the largest co )sumers of local liquor. Section i'A of tl e 1995 Act prohibi: s p rocluction, manufacture, storage, posse ]stot r, coljection, purcha:;e, sale and transport of Arrack. Section ti(e) imposes punishr.rcn t with imprisonment arrd fine in thr event of contravr'nli: n of section 7A. The Stat€,ner

17. 'lh: Tt largana prevention of Dargerous Acti.zitier.; Act, 19g6 (as amerrdr:rr in 2017) provides for preventive detention of persons in the ,:are;3.r:ies mentioned in the Act for the overall prr:vention of darger'lp 5 r :tivities prejudicial to the maintenalce of ptrblic order. t of Obf ects and Reasons of the Act specifi.:ally notes dangerr,u,; : r tivities of certain alti-social elernen:s v ho cause harm, rlalge r and alarm and a feeling of insecurity among the general pr:bli: and adversely affects public order by causring grave danger ro lile and public health. The Explalati:n to se,:tion 2(a) adds that p:r t lic order shall be deemed to have br:en .rdversely aJlected :r likely to be adversely affected if aly cf the acr:ivities of the person:; _-rJerred to in section 2(a) directly or indirer:tlv causes or is likr:l-r t( cause danger or alarm or a feel:ng of ir rsecurity

1.. 15 MB,J&BRMR,J W.P.Ilo.2133 ol 2025 arnong the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life or public health' 18. The Explanation to section 2(a) of the 1986 Act needs to be broken up into meaningful parts for understalding the import of the expression 'prejudicial to the maintenance of public order'' Public order can be adversely affected if the activities have a direct or indirect bearing or is ca-lculated to cause any harm' dalger or alarm to the general public or aly section thereof or widespread danger to life, or public health The adverse effect can also be expanded to a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof. The adverse effect of public order'stretches further to a serious danger to a large number of person or a danger to the lives of the larger communitSr' Lg. The Explanation further clarihes that public order cal also be adversely affected when thele is a grave or widespread danger to public health. An expansive reading of the Explanation would make it clear that the seriousness and reach of the act with the potential to cause harm' danger or alarm to the general public transitions to an actual risk to life and public health with the potential of destabilizing public order' The Explanation to section 16 MB,J & BRMR,J w.P.Lb-2133 oJ 2o2S 2(a) t,er orr (.s relevant in the contexr of the €founds of detention conta n :rcl n the impugned order i.e., detention of th, r detenu for the rep€ alcc acts of manufacture and sale of Jf)L.

20. Ilre i rrpugned preventive Detention Ordt:r drLted 25.7 7.2024 categorisjeri the detenu as a .Boot-Legger, under t],re 19g6 Act as justihcat oe ;br the impugned order. 2l Act 'l3r,ot - i-egger, has been delined under sectjon !l(b) ,rf the 19g6 as a I)( rr.son, who distils, manufactures, stor:s. ..rarisports, lmportsi, cxp c rts, sells or distributes any liquor, int oxic ating drug or othel- jntlxicant in contravention of any of thL_ provisir)ns of The Telanganir i:);lr:ise Act, l96g or in contravention cf any oUrer la.w for the time b :; e p in force The Und is t1!r c d Facts in The Presen t Case

22. The (jrc unds of Detention which form the par t of the rmpugne C rrrl:p d21.6 25.I1.2024 records the foll,rrvir g fa:ts: (i) TI: e r k:tenu was found to be habitually ir dull3ing Ln lee clandestine business of possession rnd I t MB,J & BRMR,J w-P.No.2733 ol2025 (i1) (ii0 (i") (") (vi) (vii) sale of IDL in contravention of the provisions of the 1995 Act' The detenu acled in a manner prejudicial to the maintenalce to Public order' The IDL was found to be unfrt for human consumption and injurious to health due to the presence of fusel oil and allied impurities' The detenu created a situation which caused fear and insecuriff among the public and widespread danger to public health' The detenu is disturbing public order' The detenu has indulged in the trade of IDL at the cost of public hea-lth for frnancial gains' The detenu's illegal activities constitute offences under The Teiangana Prohibition Act' 1995 and Prevention of Dangerous The Telangana 1986 (as amended bY the Activities Act, Telalgana Ordinance No'3 of 2O 17)'

23. The Grounds of Detention consist of six old cases registered against the detenu from 27 '06 2022 - 28 'lO '2024 ard four cases against the petitioner (the wife of the detenu) from 30'01'2024 - 1 18 MB,.I & BR R,J

14.C9 20.a.+ cases ,\1t1.(l of the six cases registered agzLinsr ::rX'""::::: singled out in the grounds as ireinlJ *,i r hin lhe area limits ol rlre prohibition and Excise Station Parkal. The detenu was,;hrrrged under the 1995 Act in these four cases fr,r possession of va-iour; .urrounts of IDL i.e., 5 Litres to 25 Litrr:s. fhe saidfour cases irr-' pending investigation. The Gr6pnrts rrf Detention proce.td t,r ndividually deal with each of the fout_ car;es in detail includin g t re finding of the Chemical Examiner. thz t the seized IDL in eacr (r'lLe cases was found to be.unfitfor hurt - 't 'r LL -tut tLutrLcttt ( onsumption and. in-iu.ti.t : to health,, . .PUBLIi] ()IItIER' Vs ILAW ANDOR DER'

24. Thr,de trate over whether a derention o rder is justiried or can be chalier:gr:,! within the rights safeguarded by the Cons titution of India prtn a r I I hinges on whether the act complain _-d o I disturbs the law itr rl orcler of a particular locality or has broader repercussi:rns on the larger 5ph.rg of pu blic orde .. distinction assumes crucial significance within the the 1986 .\cr.. particulariy section 2(a) ram eu,ork of thereof, u,hic.-r sp ecifically This 10 MB,J & BRMR,J W,P.No.2733 oJ 2O25 refers to ary act that is prejudicial to ttre 'maintenance of Public order'-

25. Before turnin g olr gaze to the Explanation of the term 'public order'in the 1986 Act' it would be useful to examine the decisionsoftheSupremeCourt,rightfromBrijBhushanVs.State of Delhi6 to the recent judgment delivered on 2l 'O3'2O24 irt Nenauath Bujji (supro)' The Supreme Court considered the fine line demarcating 'lant't and' order' and 'public ordel in several cases spalning 75 years ald arrived at illuminating opinions on the 15SUe.

26. Oi an overview of the decisions' the consensus appears to be that 'public order' carl be equated with 'public tranquility' as an overallenvironmentofpeaceprevailingamongstmembersofa political society, akin to public safety: Bij Bhushan (supra) altd Public order has also been Romesh Thappar Vs state of MadrosT ' which would lead to Public described as any kind ol disturbartce disorder and generally involves disruptions of greater gravity thart those affecting law and ord('r: Ram Monohar Lohio Vs' State of 6 1950 scc 449 71950 SCg 436 \ t 20 MB,J & BRMR,J w.P.,Vo.273A oJ 2O2S Bihct I r\ tart from its gravity, .pubiic order, :rlso cntzuls a broader segme. t I I the communit5r, as opposed to 1aw a,,ci ord cr, w.here the even te'npc of life of the community or the crlunlrv a s a whore or even a sr)( <:ific locaJity is disrupted by the comm; ssio n of the act: Arun G\c,:lt Vs. State of West Bengals. Thr: St pre ne Court in Pushl:.a, l/l,tkherjee Vs. State of West Ben.gal r dri,elt on the distin3tion letween ,public, and .private, crimes, ,tmpitasizing the injury t r p tblic interest in the former as opposcd tc) t he injury to specific llersons in the latter.

27. ILre ccnclusion which may be drawn frore th,: 35,r,r" cases is that tlre a,--. complained of must be assessed not (,nly in terms of gravity 1:u t rlso by its potentia-r to cause wirlespreac breach of tranquilirr,:Jfecting persons forming a sizable part,)[ a :ommunity or a lo<:a it" The potential impact of the act was arso <:o rsidered in Babul\[ttrq olias Anil Mitra Vs. State of West Bt,rLqalt t, )ipak Bose alias Ntnpo)a vs. slore of west Bengalrz, and i;r pesara Nookaraju 81965 SCC lnt.ine SC 9 e 1970 I SiC.) !)ll 101969 (1t S lC 1o tt(1973) : S,l{:t 393 r'? (1973) I ::(trt .3 .. .I 2L IIB,J 6., BRMR"' W.P.No.2133 of 2O25 Vs. Gouernment of Andhra Pradesh 13 which contalns a comprehensive discussion of the law on the subject'

28. Therefore, the essential distinction between 'public order' and 1aw and order' igthat the act committed by the detenu must not only be of al indisputably serious nature amounting to a grave offence against persons under the prevailing laws' but must also have a ripple-effect extending beyond the immediacY of the at targe, therebY disturbing and situation to the community tranquilitY. In other words' the unsettling Public Peace and adverse effect of the act complained of does not remain restricted to the first/ immediate sufferer' so to sPeak, but transcends the private sphere of the person/s directly involved to others in the locality or community who would also bear the consequences of the act

29. The widespread effect of the act is specihcally clarifred in the 1986 Act which provides that 'public order' shall aiso be 'deemed' to have been adversely affected where the activities of the persons described in the Act, even indirectlv' affect or are calculated to t3 (2023\ 14 SCC 641 -{ 22 MB,J & BRMR,J W.P)\|o.2135 ol2O2S caus( c alr l,lr to the general public. The Explanation to se"lior] ,,r, of the I 9il,; Act reinforces the signilicance of rhe nclir ect effect by expandrerl the same to a feeling of alarm or insecurrt,, among the generirl p-r blic. This means that, a person nta_v be r;ubjected to preverrti,ze letention even in the absence of any riire<t or proven tangiblc h,r -m to the general public provided tht Detaining Authol-it\, . s satished, based on the material br:fore it, hat the act has ttre p,( tential to cause insecurity among rr emirers of the commrrn rt)..

30. 'Ih,. s_.:ond limb of the Expla:nation to sectron 2(a) of the 1986 A:t i.c , ,qraue or uid_espread. danger to life, or ltubl c health, is more re le ,,ar 1 to the present dispute and is being s _-par ate ly dealt with in th I "l ext section. '.. .eraue tr ,)tidespre ad danqer Explalatir,!,-: o section 2(al of The Telarr gar-I Dan ero u rj_l( r1 ivities Act 1986. to life or Pul)lic heat.tlt' a Prcv 3ntlon of 3 1 . As s .at,:,l above, the concluding part of the Expla nation to section ii(: ) ,t ' the 19g6 Act contains a separate if rrol r,everable, constitue n t.tat would qualify as an act prejurticia. to the 1 MB,J & BRMR,J W-P.1,10.2733 of 2O2S maintenance of public order' Since the Explanation has already beensetoutintheearlierpartofthejudgment,theportionwhich is relevalt for the present discussion is extracted below: "Explanation: For the purpose of this clause public order shatl be deemed ."..... to cause ang honn' danger or alorrn or a feeling of inseanity among ttle general public or-. ang section thereof or a groue or uidespread danger to life or public lealth."

32. It is clear that the adverse effect of an act also encompasses public health. The Explanation to section 2(a) provides context to public health through the irnl'rediately preceding words used in the Explanation i.e., kidespread danger to life''

33. The grounds of detention lists six cases registered against the detenu, of which four cases were considered while passing the impugned Preventive Detention Order' It is undisputed that six cases were registered against the detenu ftom 27 06 '2022 ' 28.|o.2o24.Thereisanoticeablegapofalmost18months between the second ald the third cases' followed by three other cases registered until 2A'rc'2O24' The reference to the registration of offence/Crime Occurrence Report is corroborated in the grounds of detention which state that the detenu had taken strategic gaps 1 24 MB,J & BRMR,J lry.P.t[o.2733 of 2O2S betwr:c'r lt s; operations arrd that different quantities o . contrabald substat: cr: / [DL was recovered from the posst:ssic,n oi the detenu severrrl tin t:s rn 2022 and,2O24. The grounds also sr.ate that the detenu ,r.ar; acquitted in the two CORs of 2022 anrl inr estigation is pendinl, in the remaining four CORs of 2O24.

34. Tl're tarticulars of the four cases pending irrvesr.igation also incluie i1 ,r (.ar statement that the samples seized v.ere analysed by the Clrerir:irl Examiner and found to be,Illk:itlg Distilt.ed Liquor, unfit Jcr h.u ntan consumption and injurious to health,. I,he hndtngs of the rlh,: nical Examiner are reiterated in the rlrounds of Detention r L portion of which is reproduced bekrw 'Ti e r)\emical Examiner utho analgzed. the sanqcle cpined llu otLc.L h[s C.D. Report No.1244/2024, dt: O5.O7 202 I thot !)Ltlo..)7268 to 2728O was llticitlg Distilled Liquor tuhiclr was L,n.'il .fi\.human mnsumption and injurious to healttt.,,

35. Jh' r.1(re, the impugned detention order first crr.ssifies the detenu a:; .r 'Boot-Legger, under section 2(b) ol-the 19!16 Act, for selling D - ur contravention of the 1995 Act ald ther.eaft:r sets out the Grou nc s of Detention in justification of the inrpul:,ned order *-'----BF?,'!BrE"rB!r!rt 25 NB,J & BRMR,J W.P-No.z133 oJ 2O25 under the provisions of section 2(a) of the 1986 Act read with the Explanation thereto

36. The very fact that the samples of IDL seized from the possession of the detenu were chemically-analyzed and found to be hnht for human consumption' and tnjurious to health" coupled with the series of identica-l offences committed by the detenu and the cases registered against him, would bring the act squarely within the contours of the Explanation to section 2(a) of the 1986 Act. The manufacture, possession and sale of liquor may not' by themselves, breach the outer pa'rameters of public order unless the substance distributed falls foul of the standards required for public health and safetY.

37. In the present case, the IDL recovered from the possession of the detenu failed the certihcation for safe consumption every single examinationinallthefourcasesregisteredagainstthedetenue. The four cases pending investigation also prove that the detenu is a habitual ollender who has attempted to evade the process of law despite being charged for similar offences h 2022' The grounds of detentionmakeacompellingcasefordetention,highiightingthe 1 26 *.,.,,ff;i*If#;{ risk tr ;1t Llible consumers who may be hrred try inexpensive intoxLcr:lt,; ald, as a result, be exposed to sericus ald chronic healt-r ploitlems including loss of memory, bh_ rreci vision ald perm lr errr Camage to the liver and nervous svsten)

38. \.\re rr -e reminded of several instances of r,\.ide reportage of hoocl t ra q : Cies which claimed a largc number of I ves, particularly amonrl th : socio-economic weaker sections. ..hcs e kinds of tragedie i r ot only affect isolated individuals; bLrt have a far'-re:ic "rir-r 3 impact on the wider social order, i.e. disrupting familit:s .jr-',r ral6irit * the future of innocent crrildren i.md causing irrevetsibl: rlamage to social structures. -We simpty ( annot shut our eyes r,r 'he real possibility that the sa.le of IDt q,h ich is hnfit for hu,t;, r r consumption, could cause immr:asu rable and permzl--te -lt damage to society, including harm to the health arrd well-be in g r,f the public and irrevocably disturbrng public tranqu ili v r r its wake. If this is not destabilizing oI pr tblic order, then notl irrrl is.

39. Thr: r:,l5sc1iyq of preventive detention is to serve as insuralce for the fi.Ltr.r :,:. It is meant to ensure that the pr:rsor r detained 27 MB,J ET, BRMR,J W.P.No.2133 oJ 2O25 cannot commit or repeat the act complained of' thereby prejudicially affecting the lives of others Though orders of preventive detention are consid'ered to be dracoria-n on the deprivation of individual liberty, they may be necessary when the potentiality of the act to cause widespread injury is established on themateria]beforetheDetainingAuthority.Thelg86Actaimsto intervene in this space where the 'Dangerous Activities' of Boot- Leggers and other offenders named in the Act have the capacity to disturbthemaintenanceofpublicorder,inctudingcausing widespread danger to life or public health' The sale of IDL' which is injurious to public hea-lth, ht:nce clearly falls within this category and qualihes for a-n order of preventive detention' Cases relied on the Petitloner

40.l,earnedCounse}forthepetitionerhasplacedseveral decisions in support of the plea for production and release of the detenu. These decisions however do not assist the petitioner for the reasons d iscussed below' I 2a 4L. *.,.^P;{*ifff;", !)terutuctlh BuTl (supra) and, Ameena BegtLm Vs. State of Telctngtrno, rvere both concerned with Goonda's rrs dr:rrned under secticn 2(g) of the 1986 Act and hence were .n a diff.rrent factuar footing. The Supreme Court also came to a specific hnding in Amee.tr, B?qum that the detention order is not sur;tainable by reasor] ,tl J-re Commissioner of pol,:e, Hyderaba,l, b ansgressing his jurisdtr:1ion and attempting to detain the det(tnu at any cost withorrt rr:sr rting to due procedtre- Arjun S/o. Rcltan t-iaiktr.tad. Vs. State ctJ l/.r(t haraihtrals was under The Maharzrshb,a prevention of Dangero,rs; Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drc g-Offenders and Darrgr:rrrus Persons Act, 19g1. The case was conr:erned with martula(.lur€ of haldmade liquor and the Supreme Court came to a specifir: irr ding that the alleged crime cajrl be de alt ,vith by the ordina l le l,rLl machinery in respect to a law and ,rrde r situation. The Siuprcnre Court accordingly held that the subjective satisfa,ttl t:-L c f lhc Detaining Authority <lid not support t,te lact that the aclivitj :s of the appellant were prejudiciai to rnairrtenance of public rr:k: r 12023) 9 SC( 587 t4 rs 2024 lic .t O I -inc SC 3718 - --"'l 29 42 MB,J &' BRMR,J W.P.No.z7g3 oJ 2025 The Supreme Court in Vorfitza Hussain Claudhary Vs' The Stote of Nogatandlo held that the grounds for detention were absent and that the Detaining Authority/Special Secretary' Home Department, Government of Nagaland' had merely acted on the proposal for detention forwarded by the Additional Director Genera]ofPolice(Administration)Nagalald.TheSupremeCourt also found that the detention order was cryptic a-nd did not adhere to the statutory scheme of The Prevention of lllicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substalces Act' 1988' Jogi Kittg Joseph Vs- tlnion of IndialT was deliveied under The Conservation of Foreign Exchange a,d prcvention of Smuggling AcLivities Act, 1974 ('trre COFEPOSA ActJ The Supreme Court found that the detaining authority should have examined whether the conditions granted by the jurisdictional Court were suffrcient to curb the commission of identical activities' Ram Monolnr Lohia Vs' State of Bihar 18 deatt with the Writ of Habeas Corpus for directing the release of the appellant who had been detained under The Defence of India Rules, 1962' 16 2025 SCC Online SC 5O2 t7 t2o25l 4 SCC 476 rs atp-1qo6 SCC 740 I 30 MB,J & BRMR,J W.P.Iro.21A3 oI2O2S AA . [t :;l rould be stated in this context that I:r € case to be relevan , :lr: oflence must be in the same categorv r.e ., of a Boot_ Legge:. ls i,r the present, case which is under_thr 19,36 Act. The cases citrc on behalf of the petitioner are moslly lnder other statutes It,rugh occasionally of simllar import cr p: Lssed much before the 1!)gS 461.

44. Ranpttri. Vaishali Vs. The State of TelantJeno le involved peddling o1' l aanabis/Ganja arrd the Division B,3ncl. found that the use of p:.evt:;-rtive detention in the facts of thar. ca:;e w:uld be aI overree.cl ,t I executive power which woul,l Le zrmount to circumi,entirr q the judicial process. The Court itlso fout rd that the detaini:rg au thority had treated pending cases .1gar"lst the detenu as evidetrct: tf guilt and that the detention order rv, rs also in violation rtl r:rtrlier bail orders. The decisions ,tf the C o_ordinate Benche:; r)1 :,tis Court including Konireddy premalath,.t Vs. The State af I',?'onqona 2o and Bodapati Laxmi ./s. The State of Telangant' 2 t rcre on factually different situations including that teW.P.No.lt l, ,5il cl2O24 2oW.P.No 2. 8:; af 2024 2tW.P.No. 2l,6tl ct 2024 I 31 MB,J & BRMR,J W.P.No.2133 ol 2025 the offence in those cases involved the category 'Goonda' and crimesofadifferentorderincludingrape,crimina]trespass, extortion and criminal intimidation'

45. Counsel for the petitioner has laid particular emphasis on a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in Banoth Bulli Vs' The State of Telangana22. Although, the Cltention order in the said case was passed on the offence of Boot-Legging under the 1986 Act' there wasnofindingoftheseizedsamplebeing,unfitforhuman ansumption and injuious to health'' The argument made on behalf of the detaining autl-rority was that the manufacture of IDL was done with the help of unscientific methods and in unhygienic conditions. AS Stated before, there was no independent irnding of any chemical examination of the sample failing the test of htness for human consumption The Co-ordinate Bench was also of the view that the detaining authority had failed to make a distinction between 'public order' and law and order' while passing the detention order' There is no reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pesola Nookoraju in the said decision' 22W .P.No.336O4 of 2024 ** 1 46- MB,J & BRMR,J W.P.,'{o.2733 of 2O2S \r,c rr -e hence of the consider-ed \.iew that tl- e dr.cisions cited on beh:[l ]f the petitioner do not support the. cas;e fo r production of der-e'tr or for his release. As stated abovt_,, ua: ar: inclined to . follou r.re: ..ierv taken by the Supreme Court in pesala ),lookaraju. The Statg l,-rrthorities must also discharee their Du!y

47. \I ,: tir<e note of the caution sounded by the Su1 reme Court in Nenci,,tt,,tt Bujji and Ameena Begam on thc sprtte tf orders of prever.ti i,c cetention under the 1gg6 Act arl(l that the state of Telalgal a t rould ensure that order s of preventive de ,tention are not pas,,.crl in a routine manner without applicatio:r of mind. Giving d rrr: u.eightage to the observations, we rleenr it tit to direct the De:a nir 5J Authority to ensure that the ongoing inver;tigation in each o" thc [,tur cases registered against the detenu arr: expedited ald that tlLr. Detaining Authorily extends full co operat on in that regard. lvrr tote that the first case was reporred .tn ( 7.O4.2O24 which mear sr that the investigation has bee,t p,tnding for 15 months. \.\'r: are of the hrm view that the detcnu shorrld not be detaincrl for ar-r inordinately long period on the pretrxt of pending investigrlt cn We also deem it expedient to reiterate rhc riew taken I I a.) MB,J & BRMR,J W.P.No.2133 ol 2025 by the Supreme Court in Nenetuath Bujji that the Advisory Board constituted under section 9 of the 1986 Act with powers of Reference of an Order of Detention under section I O and 11 of the said Act, should give due importance to its role of ascertaining whether the detention is justihed under the law or not' The Advisory Board should give its dehnite opinion of the legality of the order of detention in view of the immediate infraction of a person's constitutional right of freedom and liberty' The Advisory .Board should apply its independent assessment to the particular facts of each case and should come to a conclusion which is supported by The prese nt Case alisns with the dec Pesola Nookaraiu ision of the suDreme Court in

48. The Appeal in that case was filed at the instance of the detenu who had been preventively detained under section 3(2) of the 1986 Act. The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the detenu (the appellalt before the Supreme Court) and had declined to interfere with the order of preventive detention passed by the District I J+ MB,J & BR*IR,J w.P..Vo.2133 ol2O2S Collect,rr, ](akinada District, Andhra pradestr. 1.hc ,articulars of the f,tur,r,1ses which had been registered against :he rletenu under the I 9'l(i A.ct formed part of the order of detentron , rnd spalned from Oii.O L2O2I - 09.O3.2022. The detenu rvas cat(.gor1sed as a Tloot L::gq:r' under section 2(bl of ttre 19g(j A<:t. All the four sample,, ,t - liquor recovered from the detenu were a ralysed ald were lo.rnc to be IDL unht for human consumption and injurious to hezlltlt "he Supreme Court exhaustively analysed :he material a,d tl-rr r:a se law on the subject of preventivo De tent ron and the Writ c f l l:rlrr:as Corpus ald concluded that the Iic uor sold by the detenrr s d argerous to public health and is a,:tivi:y p..ejudicial to the mair telr;rnce of public order under the prc,visions of the l9g6 Act. 1'h, lirrp1.-. Court also found that the grounds of detention had sJr6,'itlq 5lly mentioned that the appellant/ (l ete;r u,s sale of the liquor *,i;u irl be harmful to the hea_lth of the people of t rat locality artd c(,n i;tit I tes an expression of subjective sati:jfacl ion of the Detaininr: rrrthority. The detenu,s Appeal rv:Ls i rccordingly dismiss;eri tr.. th" arr."-e Court.

49. Tht. f a c ts in the present case are substanti rlly similar to those irL ire.; a Nookaraju. In the case before Lrs, t1e (jrounds of --.1 IfiB,J & BRMR,J W.P.No.2733 oJ 2o2s Detention specihcally record multiple cases being registered against the detenu and the four recovered samples being found unfit for human consumption ald injurious to health' This would showthatnotonlywasthedetenuindulginginrepeatedoffences of the same nature but was also seliing liquor which would disrupt by affecting the health and well-being of the public order The Grounds of Detention also narrate the community. ComponentsusedforlDLtogetherwiththeunhygienicconditions for production of IDL' The Grounds further narrate the debilitating irreversible injury to health on consumption of such liquor'

50. As opined il Pesola Nookaraju' we do not hnd aly material placed before us for dislodging the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the District Collector and District Magistrate' Warangal or any compelling shift in the narrative to take a different view in the present case.

51. We also hnd that the Detaining Authority followed the provided under the 1986 Act' 1'e'' sequential Procedure as a 'Boot-Legger'under section 2(b) of the categorising the detenu 1986 Act and thereafter passing the impugned order along with the 36 ,VTB,J & BRMR,J tY.P.Ato.2733 oJ 2O2S Groutrd r; r) ' Detention upon satisfaction of the requrren,rent to pass such ,r .r rer under section 3(r) of the 19g6 Act. .r.he rlovernment is conft:rrcc with the power under section 3 to lrass orders detaininll ::rtain persons named in the 19g6 .AcL. Th: impugned order,lo,:s -tot contain omnibus allegations bur, derrls r,,ith each of the fotrr :ase s of recovery of IDL from the detenu and tlre chcmica_l aaalys s .-cports of the same.

52. \Vt c r <rordingly find that the case in hand hts within decisioi-r- o:rrameters in pesata Nookamjuand the larv clir.;cussed by the Suprente Jourt therein Conclus;ic n

53. The cli:;r:ussion in the preceding paragraphs l(.ad s us to the firm concrur;ion that the impugned order of prevenr ive Detention dated !t5 I t ,024 along with its Conlirmation Urd er dated 23.12.2(t2 r ar: justihed in the particular facts of the {rasc. The petitioner hrl j not been able to counter the hnrling.; in the impugneJ ()rCer and the Grounds of Detention with :ega-d to the multiple o1'fe n c es committed by the detenu qualifying Lrim as a or the fact that the IDL failed to rleet the habitual o i[r:r c[er I .11 MB,J & BRMR,J W.P.No.2733 oJ 2O25 required safety standards of humal consumption' The opinron on the necessity of the detention is fortiired by the factual particulars of the Detarnlng the subjective satisfaction and constitutes expressed cannot subjective satisfaction so AuthoritY. The ordinarily be discarded by the Court unless it is demonstrably clear that the Detaining Authority has failed to consider relevant circumstances or has taken unnecessary and irrelevant circumstarces into account for ordering a detention' The Court does not sit in judgment over the correctness of the subjective satisfaction unless the decision-making process is influenced by capriceandmalice:NenouathBzl(supra).Thepresentfactsfully satisfy the last and ninth conclusion outlined in the "summary of Findings' at paragraph 43 of Nenauath Bu17i (supra)'

54. The Detaining Authority has examined the material adduced against the detenu and satished itself' first' that the detenu has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the mainlenance of public order, ald second, that the detenu is likely to continue to act in a similar manner in the near future unless prevented from doing so by Passing an order of detention' I 38 MB,J & BRMR,J W.P..'[o.2733 oJ 2O2S

55. Itr Ie instant case, we have not found .rry iack of appli,:a -ior r of mind in the impugned order, nor i ny perverse elemt:n t r.h z t would vitiate the said order.

56. V, c rL so do not have aly doubt that posses,sior ald sale of IDL, u'hj,: r is unfit for humal consumption ancl Lnjurious to healtlr, u,crrld have larger and irreversible reper:uss,ions on the comrrru nrt \'. The depth and gravity of the ollenc e w luld extend beyond he smallest circle of the community and pt:nct.ate through succe s,sr\,c layers, thereby affecting a much la-:.ger number of persot.ls. 'l'lr,: indirect effect of the sale of spurious liqucr. which is hazarrlo,-t. to health, would result in permanent ald irreversible health I a: e r ds, leading to a decline in the overall q _ralit y of life ald vyell-b,:ir g >l rhe society. This would in turn imParr the income gener.ti,rg capability, employment opportuniti3s. nutritional standzLrrls e rrd literacy levels of the society as a u.hole. 57 . '11- : i mpugned order therefore satishes thr manifold requirt:nLen s; of section 2(al of the 19g6 Act reac with the Explarztr ion 11r"..,o. The only caveat is that the preventive detentiorr :;irruld not be continued for an indehnite pe riocl under I 39 MB,J & BRItrR,J W.P.Ito.2133 oJ 2025 detentionshouldnotbecontinuedforanindelrniteperiodunder the pretext of an ongoing investigation' The authorities concerned should ensure that the justice system is activated and sustained to conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible and preferably bY 31. 12.2025.

58. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Preventive Detention Order dated 25 '7 | '2024 or the subsequent Conhrmation Order dated 23'12'2024'

59. W.P.No.2133 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed' without any orderastoCosts.Allconnectedapplicationsaredisposedof. Interim orders, if any, sha'Il stand vacated' SD/.A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI LAXMAIAH KANCHANI, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUfl 11 LR Copies The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. Two CD Copies To 1 2 3 4 5 $ya BSR BS ,d I HIGH COtJIR'I' DATED:20,tA812025 { ,11/ / \- t- t ?4 ,€ /.> () o i4,lJttt M <,. \. ,-\.. { * .... - -Lr\_i) .: (- a ^ ORDER WP.No.2133,af 2025 DISMISSINIG THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 1 b XA t)