TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1743
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e FIR's. In the fourth FIR Crime No. 221 of 2016, he was arrested on 05.09.2016. To prevent him from seeking bail, while in judicial custody he was detained under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, the 'Act of 1986'). 3. The Respondent No. 2-Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Rangareddy District, Telangana, passed an order of detention against the detenu on 23.11.2016 Under Section 3(2) of the Act of 1986, for a unspecified period, from the date of service of the order on the detenu, and further directed that the detenu be lodged in Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad. 4. The aforesaid detention order was accompanied by grounds for detention of the same date. The grounds in the detention order carried a statement informing the detenu of his right to represent against the order of detention to (i) the detaining authority i.e. Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda, (ii) the Chief Secretary to Government of Telangana State, Hyderabad, (iii) the Advisory Board. 5. The Respondent No. 1-State approved the aforesaid detent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in respect of incidents which are old, 9 to 14 years old. It is their relevance to a grossly belated order of detention which we have to consider. 9. The detaining authority has pointedly referred to only four offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, kidnapping and extortion, in the limits of Pahadishareef Police Station and Adibatla Police Station of Rachakonda Commissionerate. In three out of these four cases he has been granted bail. The State accepted these orders. 10. Each of them are beyond 9 years, up to 14 years, before the detention orders. They have been considered under a sub-heading which is as follows: THE FOLLOWING FACTS of THE (4) CASES CONSIDERED AS GROUNDS FOR DETENTION WHICH WERE COMMITTED BY YOU IN THE RECENT PAST, WOULD PROVE YOUR ACTIVITY PREJUDICIAL TO THE MAINTENANCE of PUBLIC ORDER. 11. The detaining authority has then gone to consider those grounds, to arrive at the satisfaction that the detenu needs to be detained in 2016. These grounds are so stale and mildewed that the exercise of the power of detention based on them appears mala fide in law. 12. The four cases which are old and therefore, stale, pertain to the period from 2002 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order: Explanation: For the purpose of this Clause public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely, or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely inter alia, if any of the activities of any of the persons referred to in this Clause directly, or indirectly, is causing or calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any Section thereof or a grave wide spread danger to life or public health: A person may be detained under the Act of 1986 with a view to prevent him from engaging in, or making preparations for engaging, in any such activities. 15. Obviously, therefore, the power to detain, under the Act of 1986 can be exercised only for preventing a person from engaging in, or pursuing or taking some action which adversely affects or is likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order; or for preventing him from making preparations for engaging in such activities. There is little doubt that the conduct or activities of the detenu in the past must be taken into account for coming to the conclusion that he is going to engage in or make prep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of a person is not to punish him for something he has done but to prevent him from doing it. See G. Reddeiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (2012) 2 SCC 389, and P.U. Iqbal v. Union of India and Ors. (1992) 1 SCC 434. THE SCOPE of JUDICIAL REVIEW 17. While reviewing a detention order, a court does not substitute its judgment for the decision of the executive. Nonetheless, the Court has a duty to enquire that the decision of the executive is made upon matters laid down by the statute as relevant for reaching such a decision. For what is at stake, is the personal liberty of a citizen guaranteed to him by the Constitution and of which he cannot be deprived, except for reasons laid down by the law and for a purpose sanctioned by law. As early as in Machinder Shivaji v. The King AIR 1950 FC 129, this Court observed: ......and it would be a serious derogation from that responsibility if the Court were to substitute its judgment for the satisfaction of the executive authority and, to that end, undertake an investigation of the sufficiency of the materials on which such satisfaction was grounded. The Court can, however, examine the grounds disclosed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... satisfaction must be grounded 'on materials which are of rationally probative value'. Machinder v. King. The grounds on which the satisfaction is based must be such as a rational human being can consider connected with the fact in respect of which the satisfaction is to be reached. They must be relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry and must not be extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute. If the authority has taken into account, it may even be with the best of intention, as a relevant factor something which it could not properly take into account in deciding whether or not to exercise the power or the manner or extent to which it should be exercised, the exercise of the power would be bad. 18. This Court then dealt with the review of administrative findings which are not supported with substantial evidence in the following paragraphs of Khudiram Das (supra): 10....... But in England and in India, the courts stop-short at merely inquiring whether the grounds on which the authority has reached its subjective satisfaction are such that any reasonable person could possibly arrive at such satisfaction. "If", to use the words of Lord Greene, M.R., i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly or by implication matters which the authority ought to have regard to them, in exercising the power, the authority must have regard to those matters. The authority must call its attention to the matters which it is bound to consider. 20. We are of the view, that the detention order in this case is vitiated by taking into account incidents so far back in the past as would have no bearing on the immediate need to detain him without a trial. The satisfaction of the authority is not in respect of the thing in regard to which it is required to be satisfied. Incidents which are stale, cease to have relevance to the subject matter of the enquiry and must be treated as extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute. 21. In this case, we find the authority has come to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever reach. A detaining authority must be taken to know both, the purpose and the procedure of law. It is no answer to say that the authority was satisfied. In T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala and Ors. (1989) 4 SCC 741, this Court observed, where the authority takes into account stale incidents which have gone by to seed it would be safe to infer ....