IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10240 of 2008 Between: Bunga Kesavulu, S/o. Krishtaiah , Hindu, R/o. 245, Behind Old:Police Quarters, Petla Burj, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., Rep by its Prl.Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Police, City Range, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 3 The Station House Officer, Charminar, Hyderabad. 4 The Deputy Commissioner of Task Force, Zimkhana Race Ground, Secunderabad. 5 The Dy.Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.GANDURI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: ‘It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents’ police frequently visiting the house of the petitioner and calling him to Police Stations without any crime or case as illegal, arbitrary land violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to close the rowdy sheet against the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.’ At the hearing, Sri G.Nageswara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to make representation to respondent Nos.3 and 4, to close the rowdy sheet, since no criminal cases are pending against him since a long time, in the light of the guidelines contained in Sunkara Satyanarayana vs. State of A.P., Home Department and others. I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel and I find it reasonable. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos.3 and 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner, if received, for closing of rowdy sheet in terms of the above-mentioned judgment, within a period of four weeks from the date of its receipt. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.13448 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 1st May, 2008 LUR