THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5523 of 2010 Date:19.04.2010 Between: Syed Abdul Mateen Hashim. ..... Petitioner AND 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared. Counsel for Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Home The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not closing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and perused the record. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is stated that the petitioner was involved in three criminal cases, viz., Crime No.133 of 1989 under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad; Crime No.231 of 1990 under Section 151 Cr.P.C. of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, and Crime No.96 of 1991 under Sections 448, 427 and 324 I.P.C. of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad. It is further stated that Crime No.133 of 1989 was registered as S.C.No.405 of 1992 on the file of Second Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, which ended in the petitioner’s acquittal; that Crime No.231 of 1990 was registered as preventive measure against the petitioner in view of Babry Masjid issue, and Crime No.96 of 1991 was registered as C.C.No.306 of 1992 on the file of V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which was compromised before the Lok Adalath on 10.11.1992. It is further stated that though no crime has been pending against the petitioner as of now, as the petitioner is found to be a habitual offender, rowdy sheet is being continued from time to time and extended till 31.12.2010. In view of the facts noted above, it appears that from 1992, the petitioner has not been involved in any offence. Continuance of rowdy sheet against a citizen causes humiliation to his self-respect and honour. Unless the petitioner is found to have been involved in Commission of offences as a habit, there can be no justification to continue the rowdy sheet. As no offences have been committed by the petitioner from the year 1993, the respondents are not justified in continuing the rowdy sheet. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to immediately close the rowdy sheet against the petitioner with liberty, however, to reopen the same as and when the petitioner is reported to have involved himself in commission of a fresh offence. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th April, 2010 GHN