THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.21134 OF 2002 DATED: 16-04-2008 BETWEEN B. Raju Yadav. …PETITIONER AND Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary and two others. …RESPONDENTS ORDER: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in keeping the rowdy sheet No.8 of 1995 alive without any periodic revision and subjecting the petitioner to unnecessary surveillance and harassment as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to close the rowdy sheet on the file of the Station House Officer, Punjagutta Police Station. 2. Counter has been filed stating that the rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner, as he was involved in more than once criminal case. It is stated that Cr.No.25 of 1995 for the offence under Sections 447, 427, 506 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code of Punjagutta Police Station ended in acquittal on 14.02.2002 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Cr.No.130 of 1995 for the offence under Sections 337 and 324 IPC of Punjagutta Police Station was compromised on 23.07.1999 vide C.C.No.1662 of 1998. Cr.No.235 of 1995 for the offence under Sections 341, 323 read with 34 IPC of Punjagutta Police Station ended in acquittal on 19.12.1996. In a petty case No.755 of 1994 under Section 61(C) of City Police Act of Punjagutta Police Station, the petitioner was convicted vide STC.No.616 of 1994 by XXIII Special Mobile Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioner was also bound over in Cr.No.578 of 1999 under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad. A case in Cr.No.709 of 2001 registered for the offence under Sections 447, 506, 417, 468, 471, 427, 420 read with 120-B IPC of Kukatpally Police Station is still pending. In Cr.No.1017 of 2001 under Sections 151 and 110 Cr.P.C of Punjagutta Police Station, the petitioner was bound over to maintain good behaviour by the Special Executive Magistrate. Cr.No.27 of 2001 registered for the offence under Sections 418, 420 and 307 IPC and Section 8 of Land Grabbing Act of Qutbullapur Police Station is still pending. The petitioner was again bound over in Cr.No.620 of 2002 registered under Sections 41 and 110 Cr.P.C of Punjagutta Police Station and the case is pending for taking necessary action. It is stated that in view of the registration of Cr.Nos.25, 130 and 235 of 1995 and in view of his conviction in STC.No.616 of 1994 the rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner. It is stated that till today two cases in Cr.No.709 of 2001 and Cr.No.27 of 2001 are pending apart from bound over proceedings in Cr.No.578 of 1999 and Cr.No.1017 of 2001. 3. As on the date of filing counter two cases are pending, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not a habitual offender. Even under the Police Standing Order 742, if more than one case is pending against a person, he is said to be a habitual offender, therefore, as more than one case is pending against the petitioner, he is a habitual offender. Insofar as bound over is concerned, during the period of bound over it is open for the authority to open a rowdy sheet and continue the same. However it is not known as on date whether any cases are pending. Under Standing Order 602-2 merely because a rowdy sheeter is not figuring as an accused in the previous five years after the last case in which he was acquitted, it would not preclude the concerned authority to continue his rowdy sheet if the authority is of the opinion that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of peace and order or one affecting peace and tranquility in the area or the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat by him. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the pendency of two cases, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not a habitual offender but it is not known whether the two cases ended in acquittal even though the bound over period is lapsed. However, the petitioner is permitted to file a representation before the concerned authority i.e. ACP/DCP and on a such a representation being filed, it is for them to ask for a report from the concerned SHO and depending upon the facts and circumstances, the reviewing authority may consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation, if any filed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 16, 2008 DSK