THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 16362 of 2010 Oral order: Questioning the action of the respondents in not removing his name from the list of Rowdy Sheet No. 674, dated 31.08.2005, the petitioner filed the present writ petition to declare such action of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner states that he is a businessman and politician, and that his political rivals falsely implicated him in criminal cases, being Crime Nos. 52 of 2002, 74 of 2003 and 63 of 2005 on the file of respondent No.5, namely Ponnur Town Police Station. The petitioner states that the said crimes registered against him are for the offences under Section 324 and 506 I.P.C. and that all the three crimes registered against him ended in acquittal on 26.04.2003, 17.07.2005 and 07.06.2005 respectively. He further states that after his acquittal in the criminal cases, the respondents opened rowdy sheet in Rowdy Sheet No. 674 dated 31.08.2005, and it is his case that even though no crime is pending against him, yet respondents are not closing the rowdy sheet opened against him. In the absence of any crimes or cases pending against him, the petitioner contends that continuance of the rowdy sheet against him is illegal. Respondent No.4 filed counter on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner was involved in three cases, two of which ended in acquittal and one in compromise, and as he was indulging in unlawful activities, after obtaining permission from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bapatla, vide proceedings C. No.362/SDPO/BPL/2005, dated 31.08.2005, the rowdy sheet was opened on 02.05.1986 and would be continued upto 31.12.2010. He further stated that a complaint lodged against the petitioner by one Saleem Ansari, on 28.07.2010 is entered in the General Diary. He, however, categorically admitted in the counter that as of today, no case is registered against the petitioner or is pending trial in any court and that all the cases in which he is involved ended in acquittal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. Though the petitioner was involved in three criminal cases, the respondents do not dispute the fact that all the three of them ended in acquittal even before opening rowdy sheet against the petitioner. Though as and when there is law and order problem, the petitioner is being bind over, the fact remains, it is the admitted case of the respondents as on today no crime is registered or is pending trial against the petitioner before any Court. Mere involvement of a person in more than one offence, cannot drub him to be a habitual offender, and what has to be seen is whether the criminal acts committed by him tend to disturb public peace and tranquility. I n B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1], a Division Bench of this Court, held that unless the criminal acts complained of has something to do with the breach of peace, solitary incident, in which a person is involved, itself cannot constitute any basis or ground to classify him as a rowdy sheeter or continue the rowdy sheet against him. In the instant case, as noted above, all the crimes registered against the petitioner ended in acquittal and as of now no crime is registered or is pending against him, and merely because he is being bind over whenever there is law and order problem, does not justify the respondents to continue the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to close the rowdy sheet in question opened against the petitioner forthwith. This order, however, will not preclude the respondents from opening rowdy sheet against the petitioner, if it is found that he is involved or is involving in criminal cases, which results in breach of peace in the locality. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 06th September, 2010 KSR [1] 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP)