IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 19155 of 2006 Between: Omer Bin Saleh @ Khaiser S/o.Saleh Bin Omer R/o.H.No.1-9, Kothapet, Near salala Post Keshavgiri-500005 Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District 2 The Station House Officer,Police station Pahadishareef Pahadishareef,Ranga Reddy District 3 The Station House Officer, SOT Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in opening a rowdy sheet against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articels 14,19(1)(e) and Article 21 of Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. MOHD.MUZAFFER ULLAH KHAN Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.19155 OF 2006 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in opening rowdy-sheet against the petitioner and continue the same is arbitrary and illegal. It is stated that though Cr.No.6 of 2000 and Cr.No.151 of 2003 on the ﬁle of P.S. Pahadi Shareef and Cr.No.62 of 2003 on the ﬁle of Charminar P.S. were registered against the petitioner, Cr.No.6 of 2000 was closed since the police reported lack of evidence on 31.7.2000. Similarly in Cr.No.151 of 2003 a ﬁnal report was ﬁled on 29.02.2004 stating that the dispute was of civil nature and accordingly the same was closed. Cr.No.62 of 2003 ended in acquittal as the matter was compromised before the Lok Adalat on 28.7.2004. In spite of the same, a rowdy-sheet was opened against him in the year 2005 and the same is being continued till today. Contending that the said action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal apart from being contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Police Manual, the present writ petition is filed. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents the fact that Cr.No.6 of 2000 and Cr.No.151 of 2003 on the file of P.S. Pahadi Shareef and Cr.No.62 of 2003 on the ﬁle of Charminar P.S. have been closed has not been disputed. It is further stated that subsequently Cr.No.87 of 2006 on the ﬁle of P.S. Pahadi Shareef was registered against the petitioner for the oﬀences punishable under Sections 382 & 506 of I.P.C. r/w 34 of I.P.C. in which also a ﬁnal report was submitted on 18.7.2006. However, it is explained that having found that the activities of the petitioner are likely to create law and order problem and it is necessary to watch his movements closely after obtaining necessary permission, a Rowdy-sheet was opened on 20.05.2005. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. Though no criminal cases are pending as on today against the petitioner, under Standing Order No.601(A) of A.P. Police Manual a rowdy-sheet can be opened against a person who habitually commits, attempts or abets the commission of oﬀences involving in breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security, so that the movements and activities of such person would be watched. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the plea of the respondents in their counter- aﬃdavit that it is necessary to watch the movements of the petitioner, though I do not ﬁnd any justiﬁable reason to hold the opening of the rowdy-sheet against the petitioner itself is arbitrary and illegal, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to review the case of the petitioner in the light of Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Police Manual and take an appropriate decision as to continuation of rowdy-sheet against the petitioner for further period. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to review the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order as to continuation of the rowdy sheet against him for further period on or before 31.12.2008 after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the order passed shall be communicated to the petitioner. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 11.11.2008 gbs