IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6042 of 2009 Between: Dasari Hanumaiah @ Hanumanthu, S/o.Uppalayya Durga Colony Hanamkonda Warangal District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendentof Police Warangal,Warangal District 2 The Deputy Superintndent of Police K.U.C Police Station Division Warangal Waranga District 3 The Station House Officer K.U.C Police Station Division Warangal Waranga 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in opening and continuing a rowdy sheet against the petitioner without any periodical review is in contrary to A.P Police Standing order 742 and also in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as illegal arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to close the rowdy Sheet opened against the petitioner and not to harass the petitioner by calling him to the Police Station and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6042 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following substantive prayer. “to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in opening and continuing a rowdy sheet against the petitioner without any periodical review is in contrary to A.P Police Standing order 742 and also in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as illegal arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to close the rowdy Sheet opened against the petitioner and not to harass the petitioner by calling him to the Police Station” The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though all the cases registered against the petitioner ended in acquittal, except one in CC No.716 of 2008 on the file of the Court of VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal registered under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC, the respondents are continuing the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner contrary to the A.P.Police Standing Order, 742. In response to the writ allegations, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kaktiya University Campus Police Station, Warangal, the 3rd respondent herein has filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that in view of the involvement of the petitioner in more than 15 cases, it has become incumbent on the part of the respondent police to open a rowdy sheet against the petitioner on 22.12.2000 and it is being continued and renewed from time to time. It is also stated that mere acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal cases does not entitle him to seek for closure of the rowdy sheets. At present, the petitioner is facing trial in Cr.No.51 of 2008 under Section 447, 428 IPC. It is further stated that the petitioner has earlier made a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Warangal requesting him to close the rowdy sheet but after perusing the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Warangal Town, the Superintendent of Police, Waranga did not pass any orders in favour of the petitioner. Except continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner, the respondents never called him to the police station and detained him along with other habitual offenders in the police station. The other allegations levelled against the respondents have been denied in the counter affidavit. It is also stated that if the petitioner is making any representation to the competent authority, they will consider the same in accordance with law. Admittedly, as on today, only one case is pending against the petitioner. It is also admitted that the representation earlier made by the petitioner was rejected by the competent authority after going through the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Warangal. However, it is stated that if the petitioner makes a representation now, the respondents will consider the same in accordance with law. In that view of the matter and also in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1], wherein this Court elaborately dealt with opening and continuing of a rowdy sheet in cases where only one case is pending against the delinquent, I think it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner to make a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Warangal seeking to close the rowdy sheet opened against him. If any such representation is being made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.31.3.2009 msv [1] 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP)