Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court rejected a habeas corpus petition for the release of Dharavath Dhansingh detained under the Preventive Detention Act by the collector, Warangal. By an order made in December 2024, the detenu was lodged in Cherlapally Central Prison. The detenu was charged with engaging in possession and sale of illicitly distilled liquor (IDL) in contravention of the provisions of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 and the Goondas Act, 1986. The order of the detention detailed the cases registered against the detenu. The panel of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and B.R. Madhusudhan Rao were dealing with the writ plea filed by the wife of the detenu. Speaking for the panel, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya pointed out that public order can also be adversely affected when there is a grave or widespread danger to public health, 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 destabilising public order. She further said 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 committed by the detenu and cases registered against him, would bring the Act squarely within the contours of Explanation to section 2(a) of the 1986 Act. The panel said that the grounds of detention made a compelling case for detention, highlighting the risk to gullible consumers who may be lured by inexpensive intoxicants and, as a result, be exposed to serious and chronic health problems such as memory loss, blurred vision, and permanent damage to the liver and nervous system. The panel therefore dismissed the habeas corpus petition.
DGFT order set aside remanded for reconsideration
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court set aside an order passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Hyderabad, against a Vizag-based company, Rain CH Carbon, which is engaged in the manufacture of calcined petroleum coke (CPC) from raw petroleum coke (RPC). The controversy relates to the refusal to grant certain export benefits to the manufacturer. The petitioner argued that the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), following Supreme Court directions, had permitted deemed exports to SEZ units, and the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) issued a notification to give effect to that order. Earlier authorisations by the respondent authority were granted under the same notification, but the latest application was rejected on the ground that SEZ supplies are physical exports and that export of CPC is not permitted. The respondent authority maintained that no authorisation can be claimed as a right and that the rejection was valid. The judge observed that the orders failed to consider CAQM directions and the petitioner’s explanation. Holding the orders without proper reasoning, he set them aside and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
HC denies bail in 3.1 kg mephedrone case
Justice Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court rejected bail to a person accused of being in possession of 3,156 grams of mephedrone. Syed Ashraf, arraigned as accused no. 2, is facing a criminal trial before the District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri. The accused was caught alighting from an autorickshaw carrying a polythene cover when intercepted by DRI officials. According to the petitioner, the contraband was seized in one place, whereas the search and seizure panchanama was conducted at a different place. The investigating agency did not follow the mandatory procedures and standing orders. The prosecution successfully contended that the petitioner has committed the offence and the contraband, namely 3,156 grams of mephedrone, was seized from the possession of the petitioner and accused no. 1, which constitutes a commercial quantity. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the prosecution intentionally delayed the trial by taking several adjournments to keep him in custody. Justice Sreenivas Rao said this contention was not true/ Considering the gravity of the offence, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, and the fact that trial has already begun, examined two witnesses and the matter is coming up for further evidence, the judge concluded that the court was not inclined to grant bail.
