IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 12718 of 2005 BETWEEN: Tamarana Ramakoti S/o late Sanyasi Naidu Buchaiahpet Mandal, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District 2 The Station House Officer, Ravikamatam Police Station, Visakhapatnam District 3 The Station House Officer, Buchaiahpet Police Station, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring the action of the Respondents in opening History Sheet against the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents to close the History sheet opened against the petitioner forthwith and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in opening history sheet against him and continuing the same as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Counter has been filed stating that the petitioner was involved in Cr.No.7 of 2005 registered under Sections 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 of Ravikamatham Police Station, which is pending trial in C.C.No.108 of 2005 and another case in Cr.No.8 of 2005 registered under Sections 324, 323, 509 read with Section 34 IPC of Ravikamatham Police Station, which is pending trial in C.C.No.109 of 2005. It is stated that the second respondent opened the rowdy sheet against the petitioner on 11.04.2005, which stands extended up to 31.12.2005. 3. Counter has been filed in the month of July 2005. Even after the acquittal in the aforesaid cases, the petitioner is not automatically entitled for closure of the rowdy sheet. As under Order 602(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Part I Volume II, merely because a suspect/rowdy sheeter is not figuring as an accused in the previous 5 years after the last case in which he was involved, it should not preclude the concerned authority to continue the history/rowdy sheet, if they are of the opinion that the activities of the said person are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and one affecting the peace and tranquility in the area or that the victims are not coming not forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him. However, if there are no such circumstances warranting continuance of the rowdy sheet, it is open for the petitioner to make a representation before the Sub-Divisional Police Officer and on such a representation being filed, the concerned SDPO may call for the remarks from the concerned Station House Officer, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law whether to continue the rowdy sheet or not. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J May 1, 2008 DSK