IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 24647 of 2005 BETWEEN: 1 Yadla Tataji, S/o. Ganeswara Rao, R/o. Devunithota, Pollisettivari Street, Palakol, West Godavari District. 2 Yadla Nageswrara Rao, S/o. Ganeswara Rao, R/o. Devunithota, Pollisettivari Street, Palakol, West Godavari District. 3 Bandaru Shyam Raj, S/o. Ananda Raj, R/o. Bollavari Thota, Palakol, West Godavari District. 4 Nuthangi Sudhakar, S/o. Prasasam, R/o. Christianpeta, Palakol, West Godavari District. 5 Bandarau Ramalingeswara Rao, S/o. Seetharama Swamy, R/o. Pollisettivari Street, Palakol, West Godavari District. 6 Pitta Srikiran Nagamohana Rao, S/o. Janakiramayya, R/o. Devunithota, Pollisettivari Street, Palakol, West Godavari District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, W.G. District. 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narsapur, W.G. District. 3 The Circle Inspector of Police, Palakol, W.G. District. 4 The Sub Inspector of Police, Palakol Town Police Station, Palakol, W.G. 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 may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in opening Rowdy Sheet against the Petitioners herein as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, unwarranted and violative Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents herein to remove the names of 5the petitioners from Rowdy Sheet Register and pass such further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.A.V.SESHA SAI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The grievance of the petitioners is that though no cases are pending against them the respondents are continuing the rowdy sheet opened against them and they seek a declaration that the said action is illegal and arbitrary. 2. Counter has been filed stating that one case in Cr.No.212 of 2004 under Sections 3 and 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act on the file of Narsapur Police Station is pending against the first petitioner alone and no cases are pending against the remaining petitioners 2 to 6. 3. If that be so, I am of the opinion that there cannot be any justification on the part of the respondents in continuing the rowdy sheets opened against the petitioners. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents 2 to 4 are directed to discontinue the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioners 2 to 6 and insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, appropriate orders may be passed whether to continue or discontinue the rowdy sheet, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 3, 2008 DSK