IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 22623 of 2004 Between: Boggidi Obula Reddy S/o. Obula Reddy, R/o. Boggidivaripalli (V), Sidhout Mandal, Kadapa Dist. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa Dist. 2 The Station House Officer Sidhout Police Station Sidhout Mandal, Kadapa Dist. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in opening and continuing rowdy sheet against the petitioner without there being any reason or basis as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, violative of police standing Order No.742 and against Article 14,19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to close the rowdy sheet against the petitioner at the earliest and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner submits that as against six cases registered against him two cases i.e. Cr.No.80 of 1994 and Cr.No.47 of 1997 both ended in acquittal and in another Cr.No.16 of 1999 registered under Sections 324, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the file of the Sidhout Police Station, the petitioner was convicted by order 08.12.2001, against which an appeal in Crl.A.No.48 of 2001 filed by the petitioner was allowed by judgment of the I Additional District Judge, Kadapa on 02.07.2002. Thereafter, the period of bound over in Cr.No.36 of 1999, Cr.No.9 of 2001 and Cr.No.47 of 2001 under Sections 110 (e) of Code of Criminal Procedure, was already over and no cases are pending as on date. Therefore, the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner on 01.07.1999 cannot be continued without reviewing the same. 2. Under Police Standing Order 602(2) of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Part I Volume II, merely because a suspect/rowdy sheeter is not figuring as an accused in the previous 5 years after the last case in which he was involved, it should not preclude the concerned authority to continue the history/rowdy sheet, if they are of the opinion that the activities of the said person are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and one affecting the peace and tranquility in the area or that the victims are not coming not forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him. It is for the concerned authority to review the rowdy sheet whether to continue or discontinue the same in view of the said standing order. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is permitted to file a representation before the concerned SDPO, Rajampet Division on whose orders the rowdy sheet has been opened and on filing such a representation the SDPO, Rajampet shall call for the report from the Station House Officer, Sidhout Police Station and pass appropriate orders keeping in view of the standing order 602(2) within four weeks from the date of receipt of said representation from the petitioner. If the said representation is not disposed within four weeks from its receipt, the rowdy sheet is deemed to have been closed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 23, 2008 DSK