IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.4897 of 2009 Between: Sri Pothina Nageswara Rao @ Nagesh S/o. Appa Rao R/o. D.No. 40, Pothinamallaiah Palem Madhurwada, Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh Department of Home Affairs Rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent of Police Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District 3 The Asst. Commissioner of Police Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam 4 The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. 5 The Inspector of Police, Bheemilipatnam Police Station Bheemilipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 6 The Inspector of Police, Pothinamallaiah Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the opening of the Rowdy Sheet against the Petitioner in P.S. Bheemilipatnam , Visakhapatnam and the same was made over to P.S Pothinamallaiah palem Visakhapatnam by the Respondents vide C.No. 06/History Sheet/SDPO/AKP/05 dt. 6-1-2005 as illegal, arbitrary violation of Art. 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and in violation of A.P. Police Standing Orders and consequently set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to declare the action of respondent No.4 in opening a rowdy sheet against him as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Standing Order 742 apart from violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith close the rowdy sheet so opened. The petitioner claims to be a resident of Pothinamallaiah Palem, Madhurwada, Visakhapatnam and active member in the Congress Party and working as Director, Central Kayar Borad. It is his case that he was earlier implicated in Crime Nos.67 of 2003, 9, 141 and 158 of 2004 on the file of Bheemilipatnam Police Station and the same were ended in acquittal. It is his further case that one more case is filed against him in Cr.No.161 of 2007 on the file of Pothina Mallaiahpalem Police Station under Section 25(1-B)(a), 29(a) and 25(1)(a) of Arms Act, 1959 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. Basing on the above said cases a rowdy sheet was opened against him initially for a period of one year by respondent No.4 and thereafter the same was made over to respondent No.6 and the same is continuing. The grievance of the petitioner is that mere implication in criminal case is not a ground for maintaining the rowdy sheet and thus filed this writ petition seeking appropriate directions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District- fourth respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that earlier the petitioner indulged in four cases and the same were ended in acquittal; that to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioner, as per the proceedings of the then Sub Divisional Police Officer, Anakapalli, a rowdy sheet was opened against him on 06.01.2005 and it is being continued and renewed from time to time and it stands extended till 31.12.2009; that due to bifurcation of the jurisdiction, the rowdy sheet of the petitioner was transferred to the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam City and the same is being continued on the file of the Station House Officer, Pothinamallaiah Palem Police Station-sixth respondent; that at present the petitioner is facing trial in only one case i.e., Crime No.161 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 29(a) and 25(1)(a) of Arms Act, 1959 r/w Section 34 I.P.C and that except the said case there are no other cases pending against him. Admittedly, at present only one case is pending against the petitioner. A Division Bench of this Court in B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1], considered the question of justifiability of the police in opening rowdy sheet against a person who was involved in only one crime, in the light of the expressions “habitually commit”, “attempt to commit” and “abet the commission of offences”, employed in S.O. 742, and held in paragraphs 15, 18 and 19, as follows: The very expressions “habitually commit”, “attempt to commit” and “abet the commission of offences” indicate the requirement that at least two or more cases have been registered against the person concerned to characterize such person as a person who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences. Unless the acts complaint of are more than one, it cannot be held that the involvement of a person even in a solitary case itself forms the basis for classifying such person as “habitually committing the offences” involving disturbance to the public peace and tranquility. The appellant in the instant case is involved in one criminal case and charge- sheet was filed against him under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The offences alleged against the appellant herein have nothing to do with the breach of peace. That solitary incident, in which the appellant herein is alleged to have involved, itself cannot constitute any basis or ground to classify him as a rowdy sheeter. Since the petitioner is involved only in one case, the same by itself cannot form basis for the respondents to continue the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner in the year 2005. Therefore, having regard to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it is appropriate that the respondents should be directed to close the impugned rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner on the file of respondent No.6- police station. Accordingly, following the above said judgment of this Court, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to close the impugned rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. This order, however, does not preclude the respondents from opening a fresh rowdy sheet against the petitioner if there is any substantial material to suggest that he is habitually committing or attempting to commit or abetting the commission of offences. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 24.04.2009 va/msv [1] 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP)