THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7947 of 2010 Date:26.07.2010 Between: Devarapally Ramu. ..... Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs. Vanga Anitha for Mr. Challa Srinivas 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 respondent Nos.2 to 5 in opening and continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Mrs. Vanga Anitha, learned counsel representing Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. The petitioner was involved in a criminal case registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and other related offences. The said case registered as S.C.No.41 of 1994 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, ended in the petitioner’s acquittal on 11.07.2001. According to the petitioner, he is pursuing the occupation of auto driver and painter and that after his acquittal of the said criminal case in the year 2001, he was not involved in commission of any offence and has been leading peaceful life. He has, therefore, pleaded that continuing rowdy sheet against him after his acquittal for nine years is illegal and arbitrary. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tanguturu, Prakasam District, respondent No.5, filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is inter alia admitted that the petitioner was acquitted of S.C.No.41 of 1994 on 11.07.2001. It is, however, stated that the petitioner was bound over on as many as seven occasions and that in order to keep a watch on his activities and to prevent him from disturbing the public peace in the locality, the rowdy sheet is being continued. The facts noted above show that except the sessions case referred to above which ended in petitioner’s acquittal as far back as the year 2001, no offence of any significance has been registered against him. In my opinion, mere fact that the petitioner was bound over on several occasions will not constitute a legitimate ground for continuing the rowdy sheet. 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 except bind over cases, continuing rowdy sheet against him for nine years after his acquittal cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.3 is 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. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th July, 2010 GHN