THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7902 of 2009 Date:25.04.2011 Between: J.C.Prabhakar Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.Ranga Reddy Counsel for Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Home The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in opening rowdy sheet against the petitioner as wholly illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to forthwith close the rowdy sheet. I have heard Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner was Vice-Chairman of Tadipatri Municipality, Anantapur District. A rowdy sheet was opened against him on 01.03.1993 and the same was closed on 31.12.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that without any notice to him, a fresh rowdy sheet was opened thereafter. According to the petitioner, the ingredients of Standing Order No.742 of the Police Standing Orders are not attracted for opening a rowdy sheet against him. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural Police Station and Incharge of Tadipatri Urban Police Station of Anantapur District, wherein it is inter alia stated that the petitioner is a rowdy element and was involved in as many as ten criminal cases between the years 1989 and 1993. It is further averred that due to his criminal activities, rowdy sheet No.240 dated 01.12.1993 was opened and the same is being continued by renewal from time to time and the renewal last made stands valid till 31.12.2011. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that even after opening of the rowdy sheet, the petitioner is continuing with his unlawful activities and is involved in several criminal cases and that presently the following cases are pending against him: “(i) Cr.No.155/2003 U/secs.160, 332, 324 IPC of Tadipatri Town Police Station (case is pending trial vide CC No.55/2007 on the file of Judl.First Class Magistrate at Tadipatri) (ii) Cr.No.43/2004 U/secs.147,148,324, 307, 448, 427, 435, 436, r/w 149 IPC of Tadipatri Urban Police Station (case is pending trial vide PRC No.26/2007 on the file of JFCM at Tadipatri) (iii) Cr.No.101/2006 U/secs.353 IPC of Tadipatri Rural PS (case is pending trial vide CC.No.12/08 on the file of JFCM Tadipatri) (iv) Cr.No.89/2009 U/secs.147,148,353, 332, 395, 307, r/w 149 IPC and Sec.7 (1) of Criminal Amendment Act (case is under investigation) (v) Cr.No.90/2009 U/secs.147, 148, 324, 427, 332, 307 r/w 149 IPC and Sec.7(1) of Criminal Amendment Act of Tadipatri Town PS (case is pending trial vide PRC No.42/2009 on the file of JFCM, at Tadipatri) (vi) Cr.No.92/2009 U/secs.147, 148, 436 r/w 149 IPC of Tadipatri Town Police Station (case is pending trial vide PRC No.17/2009 on the file of JFCM at Tadipatri)” The counter-affidavit placed reliance on Standing Order 602-1 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, which empowers the Police to open a rowdy sheet in the following situations: A. Persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the Commission of offences involving a breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security. B. Persons bound over under Secs.106, 107, 108 (ii) and 110 (e) and (g) of Criminal Procedure Code. C. Persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under Sections 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad City Police Act or under Section 3, Clause 12 of the AP Towns Nuisances Act. D. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks or otherwise. E. In the case of rowdies residing in one Police Station area who are fond frequenting areas in other Police Stations their rowdy sheets can be maintained at all such police stations. F. Persons who intimidate by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means to part with movable or immovable properties or in the habit of collecting money by extortion from shopkeepers, traders and other residents. G. Persons who incite and instigate communal/caste or political riots. H. Persons detained under the “AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggrs, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 for a period of 6 months or more. I. Persons who are convinced for offences under the Representatives of the People Act for rigging and carrying away ballot paper, Boxes and other polling material. From the undisputed facts, the plea of the petitioner that the above Standing Order is not attracted cannot be accepted. Irrespective of the result of the criminal cases, the fact of registration of a slew of criminal cases would show his habitual involvement in commission of offences. Therefore, Clause A of the above Standing Order is attracted to the case of the petitioner. Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, fairly stated that the respondents may consider closing the rowdy sheet after disposal of the pending criminal cases and in the event of the petitioner’s acquittal in those cases. In my opinion, closing of the criminal cases depends upon the conduct of the petitioner. In future, if the pending criminal cases end in his acquittal and he is not involved in commission of fresh offences, the respondents shall consider closing the rowdy sheet. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.10363 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th April, 2011 GHN