SHIVARATHI SHARATH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Collector and District Magistrate, Karimnagar District, the 2nd respondent herein, passed an orderdated 25-03-2006, directing detention of the petitioner under Section 3(2) oftheA.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'), alleging that the petitioner is indulging in acts of selling illicit liquor, which is injurious to health. It is alleged that the petitioner is a bootlegger as defined under Section 2 (b) of the Act. Reference is made to three cases, which were registered against the petitioner. The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent was approved by the 1st respondent through order in G.O.Rt.No.1749, dated 29-03-2006. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 2nd respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.2601, dated 19-05-2006, extending the period of detention upto 12 months, from the date of detention.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, except that three cases were registered against the petitioner, with false allegations, there is no concrete evidence or material to suggest that the petitioner had indulged in activities of a boot-legger. He contends that the order of detention and subsequent extension were issued in a mechanical manner, without application of mind. One of the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of extension issued in G.O.Rt.No.2601, dated 19-05-2006 is contrary to the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Act, and on that ground alone, the orderof detention is liable to be set aside. He has urged several other grounds also.

(3.) Sri A. Satyaprasad, learned Special Government Pleader submits that though the petitioner was not convicted in any case, the circumstances that gave rise to the registration of cases, clearly indicates that the petitioner is a habitual boot-legger and recourse to the ordinary criminal law did not deter from undertaking such activities. As regards the extension of period of detention, he submits that once the Advisory Board renders its opinion and does not find fault with the order of detention, it would be competent for the Governmentto extend the period of detention, up to the maximum, stipulated underthe Act. He contends that the Act does not contemplate any independent exercise of discretion or application of mind, in the context of extension of period, and the facts that constituted the basis for detention, would hold good for extension also.