IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 17900 of 2002 Between: Mohd. Ahmed S/o. Mohd. Yousuf R/o. H.No. 15-1-350, Feelkhana, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, City Crime Station, Control Room, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Goshamahal Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Inspector of Police, Begum Bazaar Police Station, Begum Bazaar, Hyderabad. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in opening a rowdy sheet/History sheet against the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents herein to close the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAVI SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner seeks to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in opening a rowdy sheet/history sheet against him, as illegal and arbitrary. A counter has been filed by the respondents stating that no rowdy sheet has been opened against the petitioner, but the activities of the petitioner is being watched in furtherance of complaint received against him as he was teasing the girls at Feel Khana and accordingly on receiving the complaint against him on 01.11.2000 a case under Section 70© of C.P. Act vide petty case No. 1953 of 2000 at Police Station, Begum Bazar was registered and it was ended in conviction vide STC No.1953 on the file of II Special Munsif Magistrate Court, Hyuderabad. Again on 24.07.2002 one Ramesh Kulkarni of Feelkhana has complained to the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad city against the petitioner and two others and in that regard only the police were directed to open suspect sheet to keep watch over the movements of the petitioner. It is stated that no rowdy sheet has been opened against the petitioner, but only suspect sheet has been opened. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that if the petitioner is not involved in any case, it is for him to make a representation before the first respondent and on receiving such representation from the petitioner, the first respondent may call for the remarks from the third respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:23.04.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MADHURI}