*THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI +WRIT PETITION No.2602 OF 2008 %Dated 21-11-2008 # 1 Sri Ganesh, S/o. late Rama Kistaiah, R/o. Shamshabad, Presently Sarpanch of Shamshabad Grampanchayat, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Sri B. Venu Gopal, S/o.Kistaiah, R/o. Narkoda Village, Ranga Reddy District. PETITIONERS VERSUS $ 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, Shamshabad Police Station, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District. RESPONDENTS ! Counsel for Petitioner: MR.V.RAMCHANDER GOUD ^Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR HOME <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred [1] 2004 (1) ALD (Cri.) 387 [1] 1997 (6) ALD 583 [1] 1997(6) ALD 587 [1] 2002(3) LSJ 32. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 2602 of 2008 Between: 1 Sri Ganesh, S/o. late Rama Kistaiah, R/o. Shamshabad, Presently Sarpanch of Shamshabad Grampanchayat, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Sri B. Venu Gopal, S/o.Kistaiah, R/o. Narkoda Village, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, Shamshabad Police Station, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District. .....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 to issue Order, direction or a Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus; i) declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in summoning the Petitioners to the Police Station frequently on the ground that the Petitioners names are in the list of Rowdy Sheeters is arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable and ii) Directing the Respondents to delete the names of the Petitioners from the list of Rowdy Sheeters on the file of Second Respondent iii) Costs be awarded and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAMCHANDER GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.No.2602 of 2008 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 2nd respondent – Station House Officer, Shamshabad P.S. in summoning the petitioners herein to the police station frequently on the ground that the names of the petitioners are in the list of rowdy- sheeters is arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable. The petitioners also seek a direction to the respondents to delete their names from the list of rowdy-sheeters. The 1st petitioner is the Sarpanch of Shamshabad Gram panchayat, whereas the 2nd petitioner is a former member of MPTC. It is alleged that at the instance of local political parties who are opposed to the petitioners, some false criminal cases were registered against them earlier. However, all the said cases were dropped at the investigation stage itself. In spite of the same, the 2nd respondent opened rowdy-sheets against the petitioners and continuing the same resulting in frequent visits of the police to the houses of the petitioners and harassment to the petitioners as well as their family members. The petitioners are also being called to the police station frequently which is affecting their day-to-day life and reputation in the society. Though the petitioners protested the same and also brought it to the notice of the higher authorities, no action has been taken and the names of both the petitioners are continued in the list of the rowdy-sheeters on the file of the 2nd respondent. Hence, the present writ petition. A counter–affidavit has been filed by the Inspector of Police, Shamshabad P.S, stating that rowdy sheets have been opened against the petitioners on 13-08-1997 and 22-10-1998 respectively and that the same are renewed from time to time up to 31-12-2008. While stating that the petitioners are involved in several cases, the details of the same are furnished as under: Petitioner No.1 1. Cr.No.230/1990 for the offence under Section.326 r/w.34 IPC (ended in acquittal on 26-9-1999 vide CC No.338/92) 2. Cr.No.104/1991 for the offences under Sections.147, 435, and 437 of IPC and PDP Act. (ended in acquittal on 12-6-98 vide CC No.603 of 1992) 3. Cr.No.121/1993 for the offences under Sec.302 IPC.(ended in acquittal on 3-3-2000 vide S.C.No.280/92) 4. Cr.No.164/1994 for the offence under Sec.448, 427 and 323 IPC. (ended in acquittal on 28-02-1996 vide CC No.148/95) 5. Cr.No.194/1998 for the offence U/S.147,148, 302 r/w.149 IPC. (ended in acquittal on 29-03-2001 vide S.C.No.446 of 1999) Petitioner No.2 1. Cr.No.86 of 1997 for the offence under Secs.147, 148, 307, r/w.149 of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act. (ended in acquittal vide S.C.No.336 of 1999) 2. Cr.No.122/96 for the offence under Secs.147, 148, 452, 427, 302 r/w.149 IPC (ended in acquittal vide S.C.No.294 of 1998) 3. Cr.No.194/98 under Sections.147, 148, 302 r/w.149 of IPC (ended in acquittal vide S.C.No.446 of 1999 on 29-03-2001) 4. Cr.No.217/1998 under Sections.302 of IPC (ended in acquittal on 16-10-00 vide S.C.No.172 of 2000) It is further stated that Cr.No.80 of 2008 under Sec.151 Cr.P.C. on the file of the Shamshabad P.S. has been recently registered against the petitioners since they participated in dharnas and rasta-rokos and caused public disturbance during the opening ceremony of Airport at Shamshabad on 14-03-2008. Subsequently, they were released after obtaining self-bond. Thus it is pleaded that unless a close watch is maintained against the activities of the petitioners there is every likelihood of their involvement in unlawful activities causing breach of peace and tranquility and therefore it is necessary to continue the rowdy sheets. The allegation that the rowdy-sheets are opened against the petitioners at the instance of the political rivals and that the police constables are frequently visiting their houses and harassing them has been denied and it is stated that except continuing the rowdy sheets to keep close surveillance against their activities in public interest, the respondents never summoned the petitioners nor harassed them. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri K. Rama Krishna Reddy appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. While pointing out that even according to the respondents all the criminal cases registered against the petitioners ended in acquittal and no fresh cases were registered against the petitioners after 1998 except the recent proceedings initiated under Sec.151 Cr.P.C., the learned Senior Counsel contended that there is absolutely no justifiable reason to continue the rowdy-sheets against the petitioners. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions in B.Satyanarayana Reddy Vs. State of A.P.([1]) , Kamma Bapuji Vs. Station House Officer([2]) , Ejaz Vs. Government of A.P.([3]) Mirza Nayeem Baig Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police([4]) wherein it was held that the rowdy-sheets cannot be opened against any individual in a casual and mechanical manner. Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Police Manual which provides for the circumstances under which a person can be classified as a rowdy and a rowdy-sheet can be opened runs as under : 601. The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 80) may be opened for them under the orders of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO. A. Persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offences involving a breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security. B. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(1) (i) and 110 (e) and (g) of Cr.P.C. C. Persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under sections 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad City Police Act or under section 3, clause 12, of the AP Towns Nuisances Act. D. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks. E. Rowdy sheets for the rowdies residing in one Police Station area but found frequenting the other PSs area, can be maintained at all such Police Stations. F. Persons who intimidate by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means to part with movable or immovable properties or in the habit of collecting money by extortion from shopkeepers, traders and other residents. G . Persons who incite and instigate communal/caste or political riots. H. Persons detained under the “AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land- Grabbers Act, 1986” for a period of 6 months or more. I. Persons who are convicted for offences under the Representatives of the Peoples’ Act for rigging and carrying away ballot paper, Boxes and other polling material. In the case on hand, though the petitioners were involved in series of criminal cases during the period from 1988 to 1998 and in some of the cases serious charges were framed against them, admittedly all the said cases ended in acquittal. Hence, Clause (C) of Standing Order No.601 is not attracted. However, under Clause (A) of Standing Order No.601 classifying a person as a rowdy and opening a rowdy-sheet against him is permissible if he habitually commits, attempts to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbance to the public order and security. The question is whether the impugned action of the respondents in continuing the rowdy-sheets can be justified on that ground. Even according to the respondents, the petitioners are involved in an offence relating to breach of peace and disturbance to public order and security only once when they allegedly participated in a dharna and rasta-roko on 14.03.2008 during the opening ceremony of the Airport at Shamshabad. Nothing could be placed before this Court by the respondents to show the involvement of the petitioners in any other such offences. In the circumstances, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners cannot be branded as habitually committing offences involving a breach of the peace. Involvement in a solitary case by itself does not attract Clause (A) of Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Police Manual. The original register of rowdy-sheets being maintained against the petitioners has been placed before this Court by the learned Government Pleader and a perusal of the same shows that the last renewal of rowdy-sheets against the petitioners was made on 31.12.2007. As a matter of fact, by that time the petitioners were not involved even in the alleged offence of causing disturbance to public order and security which resulted in registration of Cr.No.80 of 2008, dated 14.03.2008. It is also not in dispute that by that time both the petitioners were acquitted in all the criminal cases registered against them and no other cases were pending against them. However, the record shows that a proposal was made without mentioning any details and without specifying any reasons to continue the rowdy-sheets against the petitioners merely stating that it is necessary to have a close watch on the activities of the petitioners. The said proposal was accepted and the rowdy-sheets were extended upto 31.12.2008 mechanically without recording the satisfaction that the petitioners are habitual offenders within the meaning of Standing Order No.601 (A) of A.P. Police Manual or any other Clause under Standing Order No.601 is attracted. The said action of the respondents in continuing the rowdy- sheets against the petitioners without there being any valid or justifiable reason undoubtedly amounts to infringement of their right to freedom guaranteed by Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned action of the respondents is hereby declared as arbitrary and illegal and accordingly the Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to delete the names of the petitioners from the list of rowdy-sheets on the file of the 2nd respondent forthwith. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 21.11.2008 *TSNR Note:- LR copy to be marked. (B/O) gbs [1] 2004 (1) ALD (Cri.) 387 [2] 1997 (6) ALD 583 [3] 1997(6) ALD 587 [4] 2002(3) LSJ 32.