THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.9337 of 2010 (Dated: 18-6-2010) Between: Syed Hameed Ali @ Hammu Khalander Nagar, Opp: Santoshnagar, Hyderabad. …Petitioner A n d Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.9337 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by one Syed Hameed Ali @ Hammu assailing the action of the respondents in opening and continuing the rowdy sheet against him. The petitioner states that though he did not indulge in any criminal activities, rowdy sheet was opened against him and the same is being continued. 2. Initially, a rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner way back in the year 1986 and it was closed in 1998. Subsequently, rowdy sheet was reopened on 16.6.1999. The petitioner questioned opening of the rowdy sheet against him by filing Writ Petition No.8137 of 2004. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 16.7.2004 giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malakpet Division, Hyderabad. There being no action on his representation, he filed Writ Petition No. 23386 of 2004. The said writ petition came to be allowed on 18.01.2005 directing the respondents to discontinue the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order dated 18.01.2005 reads as hereunder:- “Rowdy sheets are opened by the police authorities in the State of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of powers under S.O.735(2) of A.P.Police Standing Orders. In Mohammed Quadeer’s case (cited supra), this Court examined the statutory force of the said provision and its impact on the rights of individuals guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Extensive discussion was undertaken. It was held inter alia that S.O.735(2) does not have any statutory force, as such, and, at any rate, a rowdy sheet cannot be either opened or renewed, unless any criminal cases involving substantial charge are pending against the individual concerned. It hardly needs any emphasis that opening or continuance of a rowdy sheet would have deleterious effect upon the dignity and social status of the individual. Such a step can be taken if only there exists substantial factual basis. In all fairness, the respondents have stated in their counter-affidavit that there are no cases at present against the petitioner. It is not alleged in the counter- affidavit that the petitioner is indulging in any anti-social or unlawful activities. The petitioner has categorically stated that he is maintaining good conduct and intends to lead a respectable life. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed directing that the respondents shall discontinue the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner is found to be resorting to any illegal or unlawful acts, it shall be open to the respondents to take necessary steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.” 3. Thereafter, the petitioner came to be impleaded in Crime No.25 of 2005 of Mirchowk P.S for the offences under Sections 384 and 506 of IPC. Consequent on his implication in the said crime, rowdy sheet came to be re-opened against the petitioner. The criminal case being C.C.No.437 of 2005 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad relatable to Crime No.25 of 2005 of Mirchowk P.S ended in acquittal. Hence, this writ petition assailing the action of the respondents in continuing rowdy sheet against the petitioner. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission on 23.4.2010, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home sought time for instructions. Hence, this matter is being listed today. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions from the S.H.O., Santoshnagar P.S., Hyderabad states that except watching the movements of the petitioner, the respondents did not call the petitioner to the Police Station nor harassed or threatened the petitioner or his family members at any point of time. 6. The factual aspect of there being no crime registered against the petitioner after his acquittal in C.C.No.437 of 2005 is not contradicted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. There is no complaint against the petitioner by any one as on this day subsequent to his acquittal in C.C.No.437 of 2005. In that view of the matter, continuance of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents to discontinue the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner is found to be resorting to any illegal or unlawful activities, it shall be open to the respondents to take necessary steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.18-06-2010 Note:- Issue C.C in one week (B/o) RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.9337 of 2010 (Dated : 18-6-2010)