IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8284 OF 2010 Between: B.Raj Kumar, S/o. Late Veeraiah, 43 years, R/O.H.No.20-1-660, Shiva Nagar, Purana-pul, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of A.P., rep.by Principal Secretary, Home Department, B.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. And three others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. V.Sai kumar for Mr. Rama Rao Immaneni. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Home. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8284 OF 2010 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. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner claimed that he was involved in certain offences, which ended in his acquittal and that for the last six {6} years, no criminal case is pending against him. He felt aggrieved by non-closure of the rowdy sheet against him. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Inspector of Police, Hussaini Alam Police Station, Hyderabad, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is involved in four {4} crimes, one of which pertained to an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is further stated that the last of the criminal cases ended in the petitioner’s acquittal on 15.05.2004. It is, however, stated that in view of the petitioner’s past criminal record and to keep his activities under a close watch, the rowdy sheet is being continued. Though the Police are charged with the duty to maintain public order by keeping track on the criminals and having surveillance over their activities, continuing rowdy sheets on the ex-convicts only on the ground of their past criminal record would be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Unless there is material to show that the persons with past criminal record are continuing with their activities, there can be no justification for the Police to continue the rowdy sheet merely on account of their past history. On the facts of this case, I am of the view that in the absence of any complaint against the petitioner leading to registration of criminal cases, continuing rowdy sheet against him for six {6} years after his acquittal cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to close the rowdy sheet, however, subject to liberty to the Police to reopen the rowdy sheet if and when the petitioner is found involved in commission of fresh offences. As a sequel to disposal of Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.10678 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 4th August 2010 RRB