HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.28017 of 2005 Order: This writ petition is filed seeking directions, by way of Mandamus, to the respondents to forbear from detaining and harassing the petitioner and also questioning the validity of the rowdy sheet opened against him in absence of any ingredients attracted under Standing Order No.742 of the Police Standing Orders. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is averred that the petitioner is working as Manager in a transport company being run in the name of Silverking Lorry Transport at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad and he is a permanent resident of H.No.17-3-384, Imliban, Yakutpura, Hyderabad. It is his case that though his duty commences from 7.00 a.m., in the morning and ends at 6.00 p.m., daily, and in spite of the fact that he is not involved in any offence, he was falsely implicated in Cr.Nos.203 and 204 of 2005 on the file of Police Station, Rein Bazar. It is stated that the respondent-Police were also trying to arrest him by opening a rowdy sheet under Standing Order No.742 of the Police Standing Orders in absence of his involvement in breach of public peace and tranquility. 3. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed by the Inspector of Police, Police Station, Rein Bazar, stating that basing on the complaint of one Mr. Shaik Arsheeduddin on 27-10-2005, a case was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.203 of 2005 under Sections 147, 148, 324, 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The counter affidavit further states that, in the said complaint it is stated that the complainant was working with one Mr. Haroon Khan, who purchased land at Rangalikidki and when he started construction which was being look after by the complainant, Md. Sharfan, Shukur, Sattar, Gaffar, Shafie and others attacked him with deadly weapons and the petitioner is shown as A-7 in the said case. Further instances, wherein the petitioner has involved himself in criminal cases, are also given in the counter affidavit, which are as under: I. Case No.127/02 under Section 70-B of the City Police Act and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. In the above case, the complaint was that the petitioner beat the complainant and created nuisance at public place. II. Cr.No.141/05 under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code on the file of the Police Station, Rein Bazar. In the above case, the complaint was that the petitioner has created nuisance at public place; as such, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and the case is pending in C.C.No.715 of 2005 on the file of the P.S., Rein Bazar. III. Cr.No.203/2005 under Sections 147, 148, 324, 435, 332 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In the above case, the petitioner was arrayed as A-6 and investigation is completed and charge sheet is to be filed. 4. While denying the various allegations made by the petitioner that he was harassed and detained in the Police Station, it is stated that having regard to the involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid crimes, which resulted in public disorder, rowdy sheet was opened against him and the same is in accordance with Standing Order No.742 of the Police Standing Orders. 5. Heard Sri M.M. Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 6. It is contended by Sri M.M. Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, that, in the present case, in absence of involvement of the petitioner in any crime, he was falsely implicated and he was not convicted in any case so far. It is submitted that, in any event, the cases which are referred in the counter affidavit, in which the petitioner is alleged to have been involved, do not form basis for opening of a rowdy sheet as per the Police Standing Orders and there exist no reasons for renewing the same from time to time, mechanically, without recording any reasons. Learned counsel, in support of his contentions, relied on the following cases. i. Baber Siddiqui vs. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and others (2000 (3) ALT 300), wherein a learned single Judge of this court held that right to reputation is an integral part of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the fact situation, in the said case, it was held that, opening rowdy sheet based on the involvement of the petitioner therein in one single case in the year 1984 and in absence of any further case its continuance, was illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Standing Order No.742 of the Police Standing Orders. ii. Suriti Ramulu v. Superintendent of Police, Mahaboobnagar and another (1999 (6) ALD 681). In this case, rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner therein was dealt with. Rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner therein in view of his alleged involvement in crimes during the years 1988 and 1999 in absence of any conviction. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, it was found that he is a victim of political rivalry in the village and it was held that the petitioner therein cannot be held to be a habitual offender having regard to the nature of case he was involved in. iii. Mohammed Quadeer and others v. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and another (1999 (3) ALD 60). In this case, a learned single Judge of this court has held that the Police Standing Orders are not statutory rules and they are a compilation of the Govt. Orders issued from time to time. It was found therein that retention of rowdy sheets cannot be in a routine manner and such retention ordered as a matter of course without applying mind is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. iv. Gudivada Sai Baba v. State of A.P. (2002 (3) ALT 391). In this case, dealing with a rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner therein based on registration of a crime for the alleged offences under Sections 354 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, it was found by a learned single Judge of this court that the conditions specified under Standing Order No.742 of the Police Standing Orders are not attracted and therefore it was held there was no basis or supporting material to open a rowdy sheet. v. Pulla Bhaskar v. Superintendent of Police, Warangal and others (1999 (5) ALD 155), wherein a learned single Judge of this court has held that when there is a long interval, without involvement of a person against whom rowdy sheet is opened, in further offences, the said person cannot be treated as a habitual offender. Holding so, directions were issued for deletion of the petitioner from the rowdy sheet. vi. Sunkara Satyanarayana vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department and others (1999 (6) ALT 249), wherein it was held that retention of history sheet, opened against a person and continuously renewing the same without recording reasons and without application of mind, is arbitrary and violative of human rights of that person. 7. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Govt. Pleader for Home that in view of involvement of the petitioner in the cases which are registered against him and pending trial, it is clear that he is a habitual offender who involved himself in offences relating to breach of peace and disturbance to public order and security. It is submitted that rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner is in accordance with the Police Standing Orders and in view of his further involvement in crimes, the rowdy sheet opened against him is being renewed from time to time, so as to keep surveillance on his activities. 8. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned Govt. Pleader for the respondents that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was involved in three other cases, viz. Cr.No.71/06 for the alleged offences under Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC on the file of P.S., Rein Bazar, Cr.No.23/07 for the alleged offences under Sections 324, 506 read with Section 34 IPC on the file of P.S., Rein Bazar and Petty Case No.2655/07 under Section 70(b) of City Police Act and Section 323 IPC, also, on the file of P.S., Rein Bazar. 9. Earlier, various orders issued by the Government were compiled and such compilation was published vide orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.308, Home Dept., dated 09-02- 1960. The said set of orders were being termed as Police Standing Orders. Subsequently, another compilation was notified and published in similar lines. Under the earlier compilation, Standing Order No.742, which dealt with opening of rowdy sheet, is presently equivalent to Standing Order No.601, as per the latest compilation. As per the said Standing Order, persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet commission of offences involving breach of peace, disturbing public order and security and various other persons are classified as rowdies. Having regard to the allegations made against the petitioner, it is submitted by the learned Govt. Pleader for Home that, rowdy sheet is opened against him in view of his involvement in criminal cases pertaining to breach of peace and disturbance of public order. Although it is the case of the petitioner that he was not involved in any offences and hence no rowdy sheet could have been opened against him, but, having regard to series of cases registered against him from the year 2005 onwards, it cannot be said that there was no basis for opening of rowdy sheet against him. Though he was not convicted in the said cases, but, in view of registration of the very crimes against him based on the complaints lodged, there was a material before the respondents, with regard to his involvement in the offences which resulted in breach of peace and public order. Pursuant to the directions of this court issued earlier, the learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents has produced the record relating to opening and continuance of rowdy sheet against the petitioner. Rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner was ordered to be renewed by the orders of the Asst. Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk Division, dated 05-01-2009. The record placed before this court indicates that the Inspector of Police, Rein Bazar, has addressed to the Asst. Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk Division, on 31-12- 2008 stating that the petitioner is young and energetic and is involved in Cr.Nos.141/05, 203/05, 71/06 and 23/07 and all cases are pending trial. In the said correspondence, it is further stated that the petitioner is associated with a political party and his movements are to be watched; hence, permission was sought to renew the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. Based on such correspondence, the Asst. Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk Division, has merely made an endorsement to the effect that “RENEWED FOR THE YEAR OF 2009”. In view of the said orders, the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner is being continued. Though I find that there was some basis for opening of rowdy sheet against the petitioner, at first instance, in the year 2005, and for continuance thereafter, but, for the continuance of rowdy sheet beyond 31-12-2008, respondents have not considered the same in a proper perspective and no valid reasons are recorded. Merely because the petitioner has got himself involved in some criminal cases at one point or the other, that by itself is no ground for retention of rowdy sheet opened against him indefinitely. Interval between registration of cases is an important factor to be considered by the authority concerned while a rowdy sheet opened against a person is ordered to be continued at the end of each year. Continuance of a rowdy sheet cannot be automatic. At the time of retention/renewal, it is obligatory on the part of the authorities concerned to apply their mind and consider whether, the person against whom rowdy sheet opened is involved in any further cases or not, so as to call him a habitual offender and to insist for retention/renewal of the rowdy sheet. Even from the letter addressed by the Inspector of Police, Rein Bazar P.S., to the Asst. Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk Division, there is no indication of the petitioner getting involved in any offence in the year 2008 and further no reasons have been recorded by the A.C.P., Mirchowk, for retention of the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner, for the year 2009. In absence of any valid reasons for continuance of rowdy sheet, the judgment of this court in the case of Mohammed Quadeer and others v. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and another (1999 (3) ALD 60), would support the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that retention of rowdy sheet cannot be made in a routine manner by the officer concerned without applying his mind. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the respondents have not considered the relevant aspects for continuance or otherwise of the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner, for the year 2009. Therefore, I hereby quash the order of the Asst. Commissioner of Police dated 05-01- 2009 ordering retention of the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner for the year 2009 and, further, direct the Asst. Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk Division, to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders. While considering the matter, the said authority shall keep in mind the ingredients of Police Standing Order No.601 (new) of the Police Standing Orders for continuance or otherwise of the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. Such exercise shall be done as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within two months from the date of receipt of this order and any order to be passed in this regard shall be communicated to the petitioner. 11. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. September , 2009 MRR N.B. Communicate a copy of this order to the A.C.P., Mirchowk Division, Hyderabad. B.O.