VELPULA PULLAIAH Vs. GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule Nisi.

(2.) The third respondent passed an order on 23/04/1999 in terms of Section 3(3) of A.P. Prevention of Anti Social and Hazardous Activities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') against the petitioner. This order has been challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner states that he was convicted in two cases by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dharmavaram in STC No.81 of 1995 and STC No.1 of 1997 for organising the game of Matka. The conviction was under Gaming Act, 1974. The petitioner also states that seven cases are pending against him under the same Act before the Magistrate at Dharmavaram. He further states that the cases which are pending against him are false cases and they have been lodged by Police in order to satisfy the statistical targets, and these cases are pending for the last two years. It is stated that the order impugned is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also stated that the impugned order is not even in conformity with Secti6n 3(3) of the Act. He submits that, for the last two years no case was registered against the petitioner. He further states that he is not a habitual offender and is running a small Beedi bunk for his livelihood and because of the order passed he and his family shall suffer.

(3.) Counter has been filed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Ananthapur. In the counter it is stated that the petitioner was carrying on the activity of organising Matka. It is further stated that the provisions of Section 3 of the Act were complied with and petitioner was given opportunity to show cause on the proposed action before the impugned order was passed. The District Magistrate further states that after carefully considering the available material in the light of the explanations offered by the petitioner the impugned order was passed. It is further stated that the conviction of the petitioner in two cases which is admitted by him brought him within the purview of the Act. The pendency of the seven cases also shows that the petitioner was continuing with the activities of organising Matka.