ORDER: SHAMEEM AKTHER, J. Mrs. Sandhya Singh, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of her husband, Raj Kumar Singh @ Kalu Singh, S/o. Brij Mohan Singh, aged about 35 years, the detenu, challenging the detention order, vide SB(I) No.248/PD-2/HYD/ 2020, dated 24.11.2020, passed by the respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, wherein, the detenu was detained under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertilizer Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders & White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (for short "P.D. Act") and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.256, dated 01.02.2021, issued by the respondent No.1-Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana. 2. We have heard the submissions of Smt. B.Mohana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Malla Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned detention order is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, improper, against the principles of natural justice and has been passed in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. In the solitary crime relied by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu, the detenu moved five bail petitions and all the five bail petitions were dismissed by the Court concerned. Hence, the detenu continues to be in judicial custody. Without there being any cogent material on record, the detaining authority reached to the conclusion that the detenu is likely to be released on bail in the near future and would indulge in similar illegal activities. The impugned detention order is passed on surmises and conjectures. The detaining authority got swayed away by the stale crimes registered against the detenu and arrived at subjective satisfaction that the detenu is a habitual offender and termed him as a ‘drug offender’. The subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu is based on irrelevant, extraneous and non-existent material. The detenu was not supplied with the material basing on which the impugned detention order was passed, in the language known to him, within the statutory period. The subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu is based on irrelevant, extraneous and non-existent material. The detenu was not supplied with the material basing on which the impugned detention order was passed, in the language known to him, within the statutory period. Non-supply of material in the language known to the detenu within the statutory period from the date of the order of detention vitiates the impugned detention order. Already criminal law was set into motion against the detenu. Hence, there is no need for the respondents to invoke draconian preventive detention laws against him. The detaining authority did not assign any reason for coming to a conclusion that the activities of the detenu are affecting the public order. Further, the solitary case alleged against the detenu does not add up to “disturbing the public order”. It is confined within the ambit and scope of the word “law and order”. Since the offence alleged is under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’), the detenu can certainly be tried and convicted under the said special law. Thus, there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention laws. Hence, the impugned detention order tantamounts to colourable exercise of power. The detaining authority has to be extremely careful while passing the detention order, since the detention ipso facto adversely affects the fundamental right of personal liberty enjoyed by the people under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the detention order is legally unsustainable and ultimately, prayed to set aside the same and allow the writ petition as prayed for. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the following decisions. i. Ram Manohar Lohia Vs. The State of Bihar, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 740 ii. Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya Vs. Union of India, (1981) 2 Supreme Court Cases 436 iii. Ichhu Devi Choraria Vs. Union of India, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1983 iv. Vashisht Narain Karwaria Vs. State of UP, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1272 v. K.Lalitha Vs. State of Telangana, Decided on 21.11.2019 in W.P.No.19590 of 2019 by Telangana High Court vi. S. Anu Vs. State of Telangana, Decided on 23.01.2020 in W.P.No.26682 of 2019 by Telangana High Court vii. Shiv Parsad Bhatnagar Vs. State of M.P., (1981) 2 Supreme Court Cases 456 viii. State of UP, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1272 v. K.Lalitha Vs. State of Telangana, Decided on 21.11.2019 in W.P.No.19590 of 2019 by Telangana High Court vi. S. Anu Vs. State of Telangana, Decided on 23.01.2020 in W.P.No.26682 of 2019 by Telangana High Court vii. Shiv Parsad Bhatnagar Vs. State of M.P., (1981) 2 Supreme Court Cases 456 viii. Khaja Bilal Ahmed Vs. State of Telangana, 2019 SCC Online SC 1657 4. On the other hand, Sri G.Malla Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would contend that the detenu is a ‘drug offender’. He, along with his associates, have been indulging in peddling of ‘Ganja’, a narcotic drug, among the innocent people in the limits of Hyderabad Police Commissionerate, duly endangering the lives of youth and innocent people, causing irreparable damage to the body organs, including Central Nervous System and thereby, crippling the health of those who are addicted to drugs. The unlawful activities of the detenu were causing widespread danger to the public health and were detrimental to the public order. The crime allegedly committed by the detenu was sufficient to affect the even tempo of the society and create a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people at large. Further, the detenu was caught red-handed while in possession of ‘Ganja’ weighing about 24 Kgs. Hence, it cannot be said that there is no evidence to link the detenu with the alleged offence. Substantial quantity of ‘Ganja’ was seized from the possession of the detenu. The ill-effects of consuming ‘Ganja’ is fatal to any person. All the mandatory provisions and the safeguards envisaged under the law were strictly followed while passing the impugned detention order and hence, the impugned detention order does not suffer from illegality or impropriety. The impugned detention order was passed on 24.11.2020 and the detenu was served with English version of the detention order, grounds for detention and documents relied upon, on 26.11.2020, duly reading and explaining the same in the language known to him, i.e., ‘Hindi’ and the detenu acknowledged the receipt of the same. Further, as requested by the detenu, he was furnished with the Hindi version of the entire material on 30.11.2020, i.e., within the statutory period from the date of passing of the impugned detention order and the detenu acknowledged the receipt of the same. Further, as requested by the detenu, he was furnished with the Hindi version of the entire material on 30.11.2020, i.e., within the statutory period from the date of passing of the impugned detention order and the detenu acknowledged the receipt of the same. Despite registering five cases involving offences of murder, grievous hurt and peddling of narcotic drugs between the years 2011 to 2019 (which were referred to as his antecedent criminal history), the detenu did not mend his attitude and continued to commit similar offence. With a view to prevent the detenu from further indulging in such dangerous activities, which are detrimental to the public health at large, the impugned detention order was passed. Further, the Advisory Board, in its review meeting held on 04.01.2021, upon hearing the detenu and the concerned investigating officials and upon considering the entire material placed before it, rendered its opinion that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu. On considering the opinion of the Advisory Board and upon considering the entire material, the Government confirmed the impugned detention order, vide G.O.Rt.No.256, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, dated 01.02.2021. Therefore, the detaining authority was legally justified in passing the impugned detention order and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. In support of his contentions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader had placed reliance on the following decisions. i. Kirti Kumar Nirula Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 65 ii. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India, (1990) 3 Supreme Court Cases 309 5. In view of the submissions made by both sides, the point that arises for determination in this Writ Petition is: “Whether the impugned detention order, dated 24.11.2020, passed by the respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, and the confirmation order, dated 01.02.2021, passed by the respondent No.1-Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana, are liable to be set aside?” 6. POINT: Briefly, the facts of the case are that by relying on a solitary case registered against the detenu in Crime No.194/2020 of Mangalhat Police Station, for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985, within the limits of Hyderabad Police Commissionerate, the respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, passed the detention order, dated 24.11.2020. According to the respondent No.2, the detenu is a ‘drug offender’. According to the respondent No.2, the detenu is a ‘drug offender’. He, along with his associates, has been indulging in illegal and highly dangerous activities of peddling ‘Ganja’, a narcotic drug, among the innocent people in the limits of Hyderabad Police Commissionerate, duly endangering the lives of youth and innocent people and acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health as well. The detenu is a potential threat to the maintenance of public order in general and public health in particular. Though the five bail petitions moved by the detenu in the solitary crime relied by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu were dismissed by the Courts concerned, he again moved a bail petition before the High Court on 31.10.2020 and the same is pending adjudication by the High Court. There is every possibility of the detenu getting bail and indulging in commission of similar offences after his release on bail, which would be detrimental to the public order. Therefore, in order to prevent the detenu from indulging in similar illegal activities, which are detrimental to the public order, the impugned detention order, dated 24.11.2020, was passed, which was confirmed by the Government by order, dated 01.02.2021. 7. The material placed on record reveals that the detenu-Raj Kumar Singh, S/o. Brij Mohan Singh, aged about 35 years, is a ‘drug offender’. He, along with associates, has been peddling ‘Ganja’, a narcotic drug, in the limits of Hyderabad Police Commissionerate and has been endangering the lives of youth and innocent people causing irreparable damage to the public health at large. His illegal activities have caused widespread danger to the public health. The detaining authority relied on a solitary case for preventively detaining the detenu. We shall present it in a tabular column, the date of occurrence, the date of registration of FIR, the offences complained of and its nature, such as bailable/non-bailable or cognizable/non-cognizable. Crime No. Date of Occurrence Date of registration of FIR Offences Nature 194/2020 of Mangalhat Police Station 17.08.2020 17.08.2020 Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985 Quantity: 24 kgs of Ganja Cognizable/ Non-Bailable 8. Crime No. Date of Occurrence Date of registration of FIR Offences Nature 194/2020 of Mangalhat Police Station 17.08.2020 17.08.2020 Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985 Quantity: 24 kgs of Ganja Cognizable/ Non-Bailable 8. The material placed on record further reveal that the detenu, along with his associates, has been indulging in peddling ‘Ganja’, a narcotic drug, duly endangering the lives of youth causing irreparable damage to the body organs, thereby crippling the mental and physical health of the persons, who are addicted to drugs. On perusal of the cases which were referred as antecedent criminal history of the detenu reveals that in November, 2011, the detenu, along with others, alleged to have caused death of one Laxman Singh and a case in Crime No.209/2011 on the file of Mangalhat Police Station, was registered against him and others for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. In November, 2016, the detenu and his associates were caught transporting dry ganja weighing about 4.28 Kgs and a case in Crime No.948/2016 on the file of Prohibition & Excise Station, Dhoolpet, was registered for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act. The detenu was granted conditional bail in the said crime by the Court concerned and he was released from prison on 19.12.2016. In March, 2017, the detenu and his associates were again caught transporting dry ganja weighing about 1.5 Kgs and a case in Crime No.51/2017 on the file of Prohibition & Excise Station, Dhoolpet, was registered for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. In the said case also, the detenu was granted conditional bail by the Court concerned and he was released from prison on 02.05.2017. In April, 2019, a case in Crime No.110/2019 on the file of Mangalhat PS, was registered against the detenu and his associates for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 448 r/w 34 of IPC for causing injuries to the de facto complainant therein with wooden stick by trespassing into his house. However, the said Calendar Case ended in compromise. In September, 2019, the detenu and his associates were again caught transporting ganja weighing about 4 Kgs and a case in Crime No.249/2019 on the file of Mangalhat PS, was registered against the detenu and others for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. However, the said Calendar Case ended in compromise. In September, 2019, the detenu and his associates were again caught transporting ganja weighing about 4 Kgs and a case in Crime No.249/2019 on the file of Mangalhat PS, was registered against the detenu and others for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. In the said case, the detenu was granted conditional bail by the Court concerned and he was released from prison on 13.11.2019. 9. In the solitary crime relied by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu, i.e., Crime No.194/2020, the detenu was caught red-handed possessing 24 Kgs of ‘Ganja’ in a plastic gunny bag. During the course of interrogation, the detenu confessed that he purchased the said contraband from his associates on credit basis to sell the same to others to make easy money. Later he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The material placed on record also reveal that the detenu has moved as many as five bail petitions before the Courts concerned. The prosecution opposed the bail and all the five bail petitions were dismissed by the Courts concerned. Then, the detenu moved a bail petition before this High Court on 31.10.2020 and the same was pending, when the detention order was passed. Despite registering several crimes against the detenu for peddling of narcotic drugs and though he was enlarged on bail, he did not mend his attitude and was again caught red-handed peddling substantial quantity of ‘Ganja’ in Crime No.194/2020. It is relevant to state that the detenu was granted bail by this High Court vide order dated 21.12.2020 passed in Criminal Petition No.5434 of 2020. So the apprehension of the detaining authority that the possibility of detenu being released on bail and indulge in similar offence, cannot be said to be unjustified. Under these circumstances, the findings of the respondents that the illegal activities of the detenu would disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and there is imminent possibility of the detenu again indulging in similar prejudicial activities, cannot be brushed aside. 10. It is apt to state that preventive detention is different from punitive detention. 10. It is apt to state that preventive detention is different from punitive detention. While punitive detention could be enforced under ordinary criminal law, the law of preventive detention can be enforced against habitual offenders to prevent them from committing the future similar offences, which are detrimental to the public interest, disturbing the even tempo of life and causing damage to public health. The legal parameters for testing the validity of ‘preventive detention’ fundamentally vary from that of ‘punitive detention’. Also, 'Public order' is distinct from 'law and order'. While individual offences without affecting public at large could be considered as violating 'law and order', the offences that affect larger public and disturbs the even tempo of public life fall under the category of disturbance to public order, for the category of these cases, the law of preventive detention shall be enforced. 11. In the case of Madhu Limaye Vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, (1970) 3 SCC 746 . The Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “The acts which disturb public tranquility or are breaches of the peace should not be given a narrow meaning, but should be given a liberal interpretation. For the expression ‘in the interest of public order’ is very wide amplitude.” 12. In the case of Commissioner of Police & Others Vs. C.Anita (Smt.), (2004) 7 SCC 467 , the Hon’ble Apex Court examined the issue of "public order" and "law and order" and observed as follows: “The crucial issue is whether the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to public order. While the expression "law and order" is wider in scope inasmuch as contravention of law always affects order, "public order" has a narrower ambit, and public order could be affected by only such contravention which affects the community or the public at large. Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. The distinction between the areas of "law and order" and "public order" is one of the degree and extent of the reach of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The distinction between the areas of "law and order" and "public order" is one of the degree and extent of the reach of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. If a contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum of the public, it could raise problem of law and order only. It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps to distinguish it as an act affecting "public order" from that concerning "law and order". The question to ask is: "Does it lead to disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed?" This question has to be faced in every case on its facts." 13. In the case of R. Kalavathi v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 6 SCC 14 , the Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with the case affecting the public order, observed that even a single act which has the propensity of affecting the even tempo of life and public tranquility would be sufficient for detention. 14. As per the clause (f) of Section 2 of the P.D.Act, a “drug offender” means a person, who manufactures, stocks, imports, exports, sells or distributes any drug or cultivates any plant or does any other thing in contravention of any of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Central Act XXIII of 1940), or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Central Act 61 of 1985) and the rules, notification and orders made under either Act, or in contravention of any other Law for the time being in force, or who knowingly expends or applies any money in furtherance or support of the doing of any of the above mentioned things by himself or through any other person, or who abets in any other manner the doing of any such thing. 15. 15. It is also pertinent to state that the personal liberty of an individual, which the law preserves and protects, can also be taken away by following the procedure established by law, when it is used to jeopardize the public good and not merely private interests. An order or detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive action, but a preventive action, the avowed object of which is to prevent the anti-social and subversive elements from imperiling the welfare of the people or the security of the nation or from disturbing the public tranquility or from indulging in smuggling activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances etc. In the instant case, the commission of alleged offence as indicated in the above table clearly demonstrates that the detenu indulged in peddling substantial quantity of ‘Ganja’ to sell the same to youth and people addicted to drugs to make easy money, which would certainly disturb the public peace and tranquility. As mentioned above, the detenu, despite registering criminal cases against him, did not mend his attitude and committed similar offence of peddling ‘ganja’ in huge quantity. So it is imperative upon the officers concerned to pass the order of detention, since the acts of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The illegal activities of the detenu were of such a reach and extent, that they would certainly affect the even tempo of life and the public health at large and are prejudicial to the public order. The detaining authority had sufficient material to record subjective satisfaction that the detention of the detenu was necessary to maintain public order and even tempo of life of the community. The order of detention does not suffer from any illegality. The grounds of detention, as indicated in the impugned order, are found to be relevant and in tune with the provisions of the P.D. Act. The series of crimes allegedly committed by the detenu and his persistent efforts to get bail in the said crimes and getting bail orders, make it amply clear that there is every possibility of detenu committing similar offences in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further, the material placed on record reveals that the detenu was supplied with the documents relied upon by the detaining authority in the language known to him, i.e., ‘Hindi’, besides English. Further, the material placed on record reveals that the detenu was supplied with the documents relied upon by the detaining authority in the language known to him, i.e., ‘Hindi’, besides English. The impugned detention order was passed on 24.11.2020 and the detenu was served with English version of the detention order, grounds for detention and documents relied upon, on 26.11.2020, duly reading and explaining the same in the language known to him, i.e., ‘Hindi’ and the detenu acknowledged the receipt of the same. Further, he was furnished with the Hindi version of the entire material on 30.11.2020, i.e., within the statutory period from the date of passing of the impugned detention order and the detenu acknowledged the receipt of the same. The material relied on and circumstances show that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not tainted or illegal on any account. The facts and circumstances indicate that the acts of the detenu cannot be effectively dealt with under ordinary criminal law. Under these circumstances, the detaining authority is justified in passing the impugned detention order. 16. It is also vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no specific mention in the impugned detention order that the detaining authority had not relied over the two criminal cases registered against the detenu, i.e., Crime No.209/2011 registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and Crime No.110/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 448 r/w 34 of IPC to hold that the detenu is a drug offender. It is pertinent to state that the detaining authority had clearly stated in the impugned detention order, dated 24.11.2020, that the detenu indulged in the offences which falls under the provisions of NDPS Act, by exploiting the innocent persons, especially youth, with a deceitful means and causing adverse impact on the central nervous system and other parts of the body, thereby endangering public health at large. Those observations clearly demonstrate that the detaining authority had solely relied on cases registered under the NDPS Act and termed the detenu as Drug-offender and excluded the reliance over the aforementioned two criminal cases registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 324, 448 r/w 34 of IPC, which were referred to as antecedent criminal history of the detenu only. Therefore, there is no force in the said contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 17. We have gone through the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In Ram Manohar Lohia’s case (1 supra), the detention order was passed under Defence of India Rules, 1962, wherein, the majority view of the Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was that where a man can be deprived of his liberty under a rule by a simple process of making a certain order, he can only be so deprived, if the order is in terms of the prescribed rules and that strict compliance of the rule is the essence of the matter. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the said preposition of law. In Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya’s case (2 supra), the petitioner therein assailed the detention order mainly on the ground that certain material relied upon or referred to in the order of detention were not supplied to him and hence, he could not make an effective representation to the Government. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat held that failure to supply the documents to the detenu would not vitiate the order of detention. Under those circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the documents taken into consideration by the detaining authority have to supplied to the detenu as part of the grounds with reasonable expedition, so as to enable the detenu to make an effective representation. In the instant case, it is not the case of the detenu that he was not supplied with the material taken into consideration by the detaining authority for detaining the detenu. In Ichhu Devi Choraria’s case (3 supra), the detention order was passed on 27.05.1980 duly serving the grounds of detention on the detenu. However, the detenu was not served with the material documents referred to in the grounds of detention, till 11.07.1980. Under those circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that since there was unreasonable delay on the part of the detaining authority in supplying the copies of all relevant documents to the detenu, his continued detention was illegal and void. In the instant case, the material placed on record reveals that the detenu was supplied with the relevant documents vis-à-vis his detention, within the statutory period. In the instant case, the material placed on record reveals that the detenu was supplied with the relevant documents vis-à-vis his detention, within the statutory period. In Vashisht Narain Karwaria’s case (4 supra), the detenu therein contended that he had been deprived of making an effective and purposeful representation as envisaged under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, since no particulars or details are given in the documents I and II enclosed with the grounds of detention. The said contention was not denied by the first respondent therein in the counter. Hence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the detention order on that ground. In K.Lalitha’s case (5 supra) and S.Anu’s case (6 supra), a Division Bench of this Court had set aside the order of detention passed against the detenus therein, having regard to facts and circumstances of the said cases. In Shiv Parsad Bhatnagar’s case (7 supra) and Khaja Bilal Ahmed’s case (8 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that stale or irrelevant or vague grounds are sufficient to render the detention order illegal. It is settled law that each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. 18. In Kirti Kumar Nirula’s case (9 supra) relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that there is no statutory prohibition against detaining a person based on a single incident, provided the detaining authority had material placed before it to come to a reasonable opinion that that from the surrounding circumstances coupled with the incident in question, a satisfaction as to the future illegal activities of the detenu could be inferred. In Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal’s case (10 supra) relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is not the law that no order or detention can validly be passed against a person in custody under any circumstances and therefore, the facts and circumstances of each case has to be taken into consideration in the context of considering the order of detention passed in the case of a detenu who is already in jail. 19. For the foregoing reasons, we do not see any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. 19. For the foregoing reasons, we do not see any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.