Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Telangana Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao dismissed a writ petition challenging the preventive detention of a man accused of repeatedly manufacturing and selling illicitly distilled liquor. The Court upheld the impugned Preventive Detention Order dated 25.11.2024 and its Confirmation Order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the State Government under The Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land-Grabbers, and Other Offenders Act, 1986.

The Bench recorded that the detention was justified under the parameters laid down in the statute, observing that sale of illicitly distilled liquor (IDL) that is "unfit for human consumption and injurious to health" constitutes a "grave or widespread danger to life or public health" under the Explanation to Section 2(a) of the 1986 Act. The Court noted that multiple cases were registered against the detenu, and the material before the detaining authority supported its "subjective satisfaction" to issue the preventive detention order. Consequently, the Court dismissed the habeas corpus writ petition and declined to interfere with the detention.

Also Read: Supreme Court Restores Rejection Of Possession Claim Over 53 Acres In Raidurg | Title Based On Unregistered 1982 Agreement Is Legally Void And Possession Not Proved

The writ petition was filed by the wife of the detenu challenging an order of detention dated 25.11.2024 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Warangal. The detention was confirmed by the State of Telangana through its order dated 23.12.2024. The petitioner sought a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the release of the detenu lodged in Central Prison, Cherlapally, contending that the order violated his constitutional right to liberty.

The impugned detention order stated that the detenu had been habitually engaged in the possession and sale of illicitly distilled liquor in violation of The Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 and The Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986. The order was based on the detenu’s classification as a "Boot-Legger" under Section 2(b) of the 1986 Act.

The factual background detailed multiple Crime Occurrence Reports (CORs) registered against the detenu. The first case, COR No.99 of 2024, was registered on 01.04.2024 under Section 7A read with Section 8(e) of the 1995 Act upon seizure of 20 litres of IDL. The Chemical Examiner's report dated 05.07.2024 confirmed the seized liquor was IDL and unfit for human consumption.

Subsequently, another case was registered on 19.10.2024 for seizure of 10 litres of IDL, with the examiner's report dated 28.10.2024 reaffirming it was unfit for consumption. Two more cases followed on 26.10.2024 and 28.10.2024 for the seizure of 5 litres and 10 litres respectively. All chemical analysis reports confirmed the liquor was injurious to health.

Altogether, six cases were registered against the detenu between 27.06.2022 and 28.10.2024, four of which formed the basis of the impugned detention. The grounds also recorded four cases against the petitioner herself. The grounds of detention specifically cited the presence of fusel oil and allied impurities in the seized IDL and that the detenu’s actions posed a danger to public health and created a sense of fear and insecurity among the public.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged offences did not amount to a disturbance of "public order" as defined in Section 2(a) of the 1986 Act, and only constituted "law and order" violations. It was contended that the criminal justice system was already in motion and capable of dealing with the detenu’s actions. The petitioner also argued that the Investigating Officers failed to follow Section 41A (4) of CrPC and that the detaining authority had not applied its mind.

The respondents, represented by the learned Special Government Pleader, argued that the detention was lawful under Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the 1986 Act. The repeated seizure of IDL unfit for human consumption justified preventive detention, particularly in view of the risk to public health. The State relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pesala Nookaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2023) 14 SCC 641 to support the argument that such activity constituted a threat to public order.

The District Collector had passed the detention order after satisfying that the detenu was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The material included chemical analysis reports, records of past offences, and details showing the detenu’s pattern of illegal activity.

The Court examined the distinction between preventive detention and punitive detention, stating "Preventive detention is to prevent commission of an act or a crime on the basis of a reasonable apprehension."

It noted that the scope of Section 2(a) of the 1986 Act and its Explanation provided that "public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely... if any of the activities... cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public... or a grave widespread danger to life or public health."

The Bench recorded, "The very fact that the samples of IDL seized from the possession of the detenu were chemically-analysed and found to be ‘unfit for human consumption’ and ‘injurious to health’, coupled with the series of identical offences... would bring the act squarely within the contours of the Explanation to section 2(a) of the 1986 Act."

Regarding the petitioner’s contention about the distinction between law and order and public order, the Court referred to Supreme Court precedents and observed, "The act committed by the detenu must not only be of an indisputably serious nature... but must also have a ripple-effect... thereby disturbing and unsettling public peace and tranquillity."

The Court stated, "The indirect effect of the sale of spurious liquor, which is hazardous to health, would result in permanent and irreversible health hazards, leading to a decline in the overall quality of life and well-being of the society."

On subjective satisfaction, the Bench held, "The opinion on the necessity of the detention is fortified by the factual particulars and constitutes the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. The subjective satisfaction so expressed cannot ordinarily be discarded by the Court..."

The Court distinguished the cases cited by the petitioner, noting that most were under different statutes or based on different categories of offenders. It found that the facts of the present case closely aligned with the decision in Pesala Nookaraju, in which the Supreme Court upheld detention on similar grounds.

Also Read: No Proximate Instigation Or Mens Rea Made Out | Bombay High Court Quashes FIR And Chargesheet Against Businessman Named In Suicide Note

The Court declined to interfere with the detention order, stating, "We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Preventive Detention Order dated 25.11.2024 or the subsequent Confirmation Order dated 23.12.2024."

However, the Court directed the authorities to expedite the investigation process, recording, "We are of the firm view that the detenu should not be detained for an inordinately long period on the pretext of pending 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."

The writ petition was ultimately dismissed with no order as to costs, and all interim orders stood vacated.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Laxmaiah Kanchani, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, Special Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General

Case Title: Dharavath Laxmi v. The State of Telangana and Others

Case Number: W.P.No.2133 of 2025

Bench: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao

[Read/Download order]