IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.2206 of 2010 Between: Md.Shabbir Pasha. … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Narsi Reddy for Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not closing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner was accused in Sessions Case No.78 of 2008, on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989- cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short “the Special Court”), filed for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 420 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”). After a full-fledged trial, the petitioner was acquitted of the said charges, through Judgment, dated 7-7-2008, passed by the Special Court. However, after registration of the criminal case and during the pendency of the said Sessions Case, a Rowdy Sheet was opened against the petitioner in respondent No.4- Police Station. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite his acquittal in the said Sessions Case, the rowdy sheet was not closed by respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner further stated that he was selected and appointed as Home Guard and has undergone training from 01-6-2009; and that on account of continuance of the rowdy sheet, he was discontinued from the said training. No counter-affidavit is filed controverting the above mentioned allegations. I have perused the judgment in the above mentioned Sessions Case, wherein the Sessions Court has given a categorical finding that there is no iota of evidence on record to hold the petitioner guilty of the offences, with which he was charged. In my opinion, the very opening of rowdy sheet itself, on the basis of the alleged involvement in a single case, is wholly unwarranted and unjustified. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that the petitioner is in the habit of getting involved in criminal cases or that he is causing breach of peace in the area in which he is living. Having unnecessarily opened a rowdy sheet, respondents 3 and 4 ought to have closed it at least after the honourable acquittal of the petitioner of the said Sessions Case. The patently illegal action of respondents 3 and 4 appeared to have cost the petitioner of his employment. This Court cannot countenance such an illegal action on the part of the officers holding public posts. Respondent No.2 is, therefore, directed to hold an enquiry into the conduct of respondents 3 and 4 in opening the rowdy sheet against the petitioner and after such an enquiry if it is found that opening of such rowdy sheet was not in conformity with Standing Order No. 601 of the A.P. Police Manual, appropriate departmental action shall be taken against them. Respondents 3 and 4 are directed to close the rowdy sheet against the petitioner, forthwith, and intimate the same to him within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:06-4-2010 MNR