IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.22620 of 2008 Between: 1 Tatikayala Veeranna S/o. Late Dharma Rao, Hindu R/o. Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 2 Smt.K.Pyla Sujatha W/o.Sanyasi Rao R/o.Bhagavandas colony, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police West Godavari District, Eluru 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 The Station House Officer, Tadepalligudem Police Station West Godavari 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in continuing the rowdy sheet No. 351 opened against the petitioner on 28-6-1992 on the ﬁle of the Tadepalligudem Police Station without any manner of right as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the police Standing Orders and violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to remove the said rowdy sheet forthwith and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.22620 of 2008 ORDER: The writ petition is ﬁled seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in continuing the rowdy sheet No.351 opened against the petitioner on 28.06.1992 on the ﬁle of Tadepalligudem Police Station without any manner of right as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Police Standing Orders. The petitioner is a resident of Tadepalligudem in West Godavari District. It is the case of the petitioner that a rowdy sheet was opened against him in 1992 on the basis of criminal cases foisted against him by that time. It is alleged that taking advantage of the same, he was also implicated in 25 criminal cases, and he was acquitted from all those cases. Petitioner also submits that no crime whatsoever has been registered against him for the last three years. Petitioner approached the respondents requesting to remove the rowdy sheet opened against him, in vain. Hence, he filed the instant writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The questions raised in this writ petition are squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in S. Satyanarayana v. State of A.P. [1]. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for closing rowdy sheet following the principles laid down in Satyanarayana’s case (supra), which are as under. (i) A mere conviction or convictions cannot be thumb rule for opening history sheet or rowdy sheet though history sheet can be opened even without conviction for the limited purpose of watching a person discreetly. (ii) At the time of opening a history sheet or rowdy sheet a competent oﬃcer has to apply mind taking into consideration the social background the proceedings in the criminal trial if a person is convicted and all other relevant material before passing orders for opening history sheet or rowdy sheet. (iii) A history sheet/rowdy sheet is retained for the period of two years only unless it is ordered to be closed by the Superintendent of Police earlier than two years. During the initial period of two years, the history sheeter or rowdy sheeter is entitled to request the concerned police officer to close the history sheet or rowdy sheet which has to be considered by the police officer in an objective manner. (iv) While passing orders for retention of history sheet for another year more, the competent Sub-Divisional Police Oﬃcer has to take into consideration the various factors, to wit, surveillance reports, the crime history with reference to the breach of peace of society during the preceding year, the social and political background of the person etc. If there is a preponderance of opinion among the surveillance oﬃcers that the person did not come up for any adverse notice and leading a blemishless family life it is a strong circumstance to order for closure of the history sheet or rowdy sheet. (v) When an order is passed by the competent police oﬃcer for retention of the history sheet by simply endorsing on the report/letter of the S.H.O. a single line order, that by itself cannot be a ground to continue the rowdy sheet. (vi) Any order passed by the Sub-Divisional Police Oﬃcer shall have to be supported by reasons. The reasons need not be communicated but to be recorded. (vii) The orders for opening or retention of history sheet/rowdy sheet are passed under the administrative instructions/guidelines. If such an order is challenged, the competent authority has to place the reasons before the Court which justify retention of history sheet/rowdy sheet. Further, it is always better for the Police Oﬃcer to record his own reasons for retention/opening of the history sheet/rowdy sheet. (viii) In the event as mentioned in conclusion 4.7 it is always open to the Court of judicial review to direct the Sub- Divisional Police Oﬃcer to reconsider his decision and pass appropriate orders. But whatever be the events in the guise of opening/retention of history sheet a person’s liberty, right to privacy and other freedoms under Article 19 of the Constitution of India cannot be infringed under any circumstances. (ix) It is to be remembered that any order of the competent police oﬃcer which is not supported by reasons is itself unreasonable and arbitrary and can be termed as mala ﬁde in the sense that it is contrary to the purpose for which the Police Oﬃcer is authorised under relevant Police Standing Orders. Hence, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the order of the Sub-Divisional Police Oﬃcer is contrary to the purpose for which surveillance is authorised, the action shall be set at naught forthwith on the principle that what is unreasonable and unfair is arbitrary and such arbitrary exercise of power amounts to exercising, the power mala fide. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to approach the third respondent by ﬁling appropriate representation for closing rowdy sheet, if the same is still continued. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 17.10.2008 vs To 1 The Superintendent of Police West Godavari District, Eluru 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 The Station House Officer, Tadepalligudem Police Station West Godavari District. 4 2CCs to G.P for Home, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} [1] 1999 (6) ALT 249