IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 12472 of 2005 Between: Mohd. Ahmed Ali, s/o Late Mohd. Abbas Ali, R/o 18-1-437/D/1, Phool Bagh, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Falaknama Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Inspector of Police, Chatrinaka Police Station, Chatrinaka, Hyderabad. .....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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in opening Rowdy/History Sheet against the petitioner at Chatrinaka Police Station ie., the 3rd respondent herein and continuing the said Rowdy/History Sheet, as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the said Rowdy/History Sheet in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.P.SHIV KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that opening a rowdy sheet against him and continuing the same in spite of the acquittal of the criminal cases against him is illegal and arbitrary. 3. Counter has been filed stating that the petitioner was convicted in Cr.No.125 of 2000 for the offence under Section 353 IPC but the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said case has been ended in acquittal in Crl.R.C.No.1067 of 2005 vide order, dated 04-03-2003, of this Court. 4. It is stated that even according to the respondents Cr.No.147 of 2001 ended in acquittal due to lack of evidence. It is stated that case in Cr.No.3 of 1998 for the offence under Sections 417 and 420 IPC and Section 5 of the Land Grabbing Act is pending but it is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the said case also ended in acquittal in C.C.No.1423 of 2001 vide order, dated 19-10- 2006, of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District. It is stated that Cr.Nos.111 of 2004 and 115 of 2004 are false cases and they themselves closed the said crime numbers and he is not convicted in any of the criminal cases and therefore pending of the rowdy sheet is illegal and arbitrary. 5. I am of the opinion that whenever a rowdy sheet is opened it is for the concerned authority to continue or discontinue the same. Such opening of the rowdy sheet has to be reviewed by the end of every year. Under Section 602(1) of the A.P.Police Standing Orders the concerned Officer has to consider either to continue or to discontinue the rowdy sheet by the end of the year. Under Section 602 of the Police Standing Orders merely because the rowdy sheeter is not figured as an accused in the previous five years, it will not preclude them to discontinue the rowdy sheet if the activities of the rowdy sheeter are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order or affecting the peace and tranquility in the area or the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat. 6. I am of the opinion that unless the concerned Officer records the reasons in writing for continuing the rowdy sheet that the activities of the rowdy sheeters are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order or affecting the peace and tranquility in the area and that no one is coming forward to file a complaint such rowdy sheet cannot be continued. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a representation before the 2nd respondent enclosing the relevant judgments of the Criminal Cases and if any such representation is filed the same may be considered and disposed of within three weeks from the date of receipt of the same. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 13th March, 2008 Tsy To 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Falaknama Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Inspector of Police, Chatrinaka Police Station, Chatrinaka, Hyderabad.