BOYA THAYAMMA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Boya Thayamma, wife of Boya Thikkaiah,. Victoriapeta, Meddarigeri, Adoni, Kurnool District, has filed this petition questioning the detention of her husband Boya Thikkaiah (hereinafter referred to as "detenue") under the AP. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short "the Act").

(2.) The petitioner claims that her husband, an agricultural coolie, was taken away from his house by the police on 9-12-2005. Subsequently, she was served with the proceedings of the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool in Rc.No.C1/1271/M/2005, dated 9-12-2005 directing detention of her husband. Boya Thikkaiah in Cherlaplli Jail in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) and (2) of the Act. The State Government confirmed the order of detention vide G.O. Rt. No.460 dated 25-1-2006. The petitioner has pleaded that the order of detention has been passed due to political rivalry as her husband played an active role in campaigning for his brother who contested as a Councillor in Adoni Municipality on behalf of Telugu Desam Party. She has further pleaded that the order of detention is ultra vires to Section 3 of the Act because the three cases registered against her husband do not lead to an interference that he is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or is dangerous to public health.

(3.) In the counter filed on behalf of the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool, it has been averred that the order of detention was passed because the petitioner's husband was indulging in illegal activities of dangerous offences of sale of illicitly distilled liquor in and around Adoni town in Kurnool District and acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and tranquility and thereby causing widespread danger to the public health and safety, squarely falling within the definition of 'bootlegger' as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. It has been further averred that the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Kurnool placed a report before him along with the material bringing to his notice that the detenue is habituated in operating in sale and possession of illicitly distilled liquor for monetary gain in and around Adoni town, which is adversely affecting the public, particularly the down trodden and underprivileged sections of the people living in and around Adoni town and also furnished a list of various cases in which the detenue was involved. He, after going through the material, felt convinced that it was a fit case for exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act. Still further it has been averred that in Crime No.406/2003-04 dated 4-1-2004, the detenu was found in possession of 10 litres of illicitly distilled liquor in a plastic can and the chemical analysis report revealed that the sample appeared to be illicitly distilled liquor. Thereupon, charge sheet was filed on 10-9-2003. In Crime No.281/2005-06 dated 18-10-2005 the detenu was found in possession of one white plastic can with 20 litres of I.D. liquor, which was also found on chemical analysis to be illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption. The case is under investigation. In Crime No.371/2005-06 dated 5-12-2005, the detenu was found in possession of 5 litres of illicitly distilled arrack, which was also found on chemical analysis to be illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption. This case is also under investigation. The launching of prosecution in the three cases had no desired impact on the clandestine and bootlegging activities of the detenu and hence, circumstances existed for passing an order of detention. The allegations of false implication due to political rivalry have been denied and it has been averred that the confirmation of the order of detention by the State Government on the recommendations of the Advisory Board is clearly indicative of the fact that the satisfaction of the concerned officer was not tainted with arbitrariness or bias.