IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 910 of 2005 Between: Veerapaneni Satyanarayana S/o Nageswara Rao R/o Styanarayanapuram Village, Varni Mandal, Nizamabad District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad 2 Circle Inspector of Police, Bodhan Police Station, Bodhan 3 Sub Inspector of Police, Varni Police Station, Varni Nizamabad District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a WRit in the nature fo wRit of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in opening rowdy sheet against the petitioenr in FIR No. 1/2005 on the file of the Varni Police Station, as being illegal, arbitrary, wtihout jurisidiction and contrary to the A.P. Police Standing Orders and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: Petitioner questions the rowdy-sheet opened against him by Varni Police Station, Nizamabad in Cr.No.1 of 2005, to be illegal and arbitrary. It is on record that a crime in Cr.No.61 of 2004 before the aforesaid police station had been registered against the petitioner on 19.4.2004 during the course of Assembly elections, based on a complaint by the rival party candidates. It is alleged by the petitioner that the subsequent complaints registered against him are either suo motu or politically motivated and the opening of the rowdy-sheet and continuing the same is arbitrary. It is stated that if the antecedents of the petitioner is not criminal in nature but based on political activities, opening of such rowdy-sheet is against the fundamental rights of the petitioner. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is at liberty to file an application before the 2nd respondent and on filing such an application, the authorities may review the activities of the petitioner in accordance with the Police Standing Orders and if no cases are pending against the petitioner as on date and his activities are not detrimental to public peace and tranquility, necessary action shall be taken for discontinuance of the rowdy-sheet. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. -------------------------- V. ESWARAIAH, J DATE: 28.3.2008 CVM