IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 19400 of 2008 Between: Tallapaneni Venkateswarlu S/o.Venkata Subbaiah R/o.Anandapuram Village, Kandukur Rural and Kandukur Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District at Ongole. 2 The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kandukur Sub-Division, Kandukur, Prakasam District. 3 The Station House Officer, Kandukur Rural P.S. Kandukur, Prakasam 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 to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not deleting the petitioner's name from the Rowdy Sheet list of Kandukur Rural Police Station as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and consequently direct the Respondents to delete the name of the Petitioner from the Rowdy Sheet (Rowdy Sheet No.3) List of the Kandukur Rural Police Station and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PARA RAMU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.No.19400 of 2008 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not deleting the petitioner’s name from rowdy sheet, as arbitrary and illegal. It is stated that while the petitioner was studying in TRR Government College in the year 1993 he was a Union Leader of the College and he was implicated in false cases registered as Cr.No.79/92, Cr.Nos.37/93 and Cr.No.38/93 on the ﬁle of Kandukur Rural P.S. However, all the said cases ended in acquittal on 14-05-1998, 14-07-2005 and 13-04-2007 respectively. Subsequently, though no fresh case has been registered, the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner on 13-04-1993 on the ﬁle of the SHO, Kandukur Rural P.S. is continued till today. When the petitioner made a representation on 23-07-2008 bringing to the notice of the respondents that no fresh case has been registered against him during the last 15 years and therefore requesting to delete his name from the rowdy sheet list, the 1st respondent by order dated.28-07-2008 called for a report from the 2nd respondent. However, no further steps have been taken. Hence the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandukur Rural P.S. ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit, in which the fact that Cr.Nos.79/02, 37/93, 38/93 ended in acquittal, has not been disputed. However, it is stated that subsequently Cr.No.37/07 was registered against the petitioner under Sec.110(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 on the ﬁle of the Kandukur Rural P.S. on 25-06-2008 and he was bound over for a period of one(1) year. Similarly Cr.No.92 of 2008 was also registered against the petitioner for the oﬀence under Sections.143, 341, 285 read with 149 IPC and investigation is still pending. Having regard to the pendency of the above cases, it has become imperative to continue the rowdy sheet, which was opened against the petitioner on 13-04-1993 and the same stands extended till 31-12-2008 on the ﬁle of the Kandukur P.S. I have heard the learned counsel for the both parties and perused the material on record. As per Standing Order.742 of A.P. Police Standing Orders a rowdy sheet can be opened against the persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of oﬀences involving a breach of peace. It is true that all the cases registered against the petitioner in the year 1993 ended in acquittal and thereafter for a long period no fresh cases were registered against him. However, as on today Cr.No.92/08, registered for the oﬀences punishable under Sec.143, 341, 295 of IPC is pending against the petitioner. All the said oﬀences namely unlawful assembly, wrongful confinement and negligent conduct with respect to ﬁre or combustible matter involve an element of breach of peace. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner was bound over for a period of one (1) year under Sec.110(e) of Cr.P.C. on 25-06-2008 which shows that there is an apprehension that he is likely to commit an oﬀence involving breach of peace or disturbance of the public tranquility. In the circumstances though I am not inclined to issue the Mandamus as prayed for, having regard to the fact that the petitioner made a detailed representation dated.23-07-2008 upon which the 1st respondent called for a report from the 2nd respondent there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated.23-07-2008 and to review the case of the petitioner after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to make a fresh representation if necessary and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on or before 31-12-2008. With the above directions the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt.16.10.2008 *T SNR