THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12194 of 2007 DATE: 25.06.2010 Between: Sabav th Balasing Naik …Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI CHALLA SRINIVAS REDDY COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS : AGP FOR HOME THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12194 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondents 2 to 5 in opening and maintaining rowdy sheet against the petitioner, as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner claims to belong to a political party, which is in Opposition. On an earlier occasion, a rowdy sheet was opened against him and was closed on 10.08.2003. It was again re-opened against him on 04.02.2007. This action of the respondents is called in question in this writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police, Mahabubnagar Rural, Mahabubnagar – respondent No.4, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner is a rowdy element and was involved in as many as four cases. It is further stated that while those four cases pertaining to the period 1995-98 ended in the petitioner’s acquittal, he was again involved in commission of two more offences, which included Crime No.4 of 2007 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC read with Sections 149, 109 and 120B IPC of Koilkonda Police Station, wherein he was shown as A1. It is also stated that the said case is stated to be a double murder case, the trial in which is pending. Sri Ch.Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is a State leader belonging to Scheduled Tribe community and that he is being implicated in false cases at the instance of his political adversaries. Under Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, the police are empowered to open a rowdy sheet against a person, if any of the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. It is not in dispute that these conditions include the criminal background of the person and the apprehension that he may commit breach of peace and public order. A learned Single Judge of this Court in SUNKARA SATYANARAYANA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HOME DEPARTMENT[1], after an elaborate consideration of the case law on the aspect, held that the police can open rowdy sheet if the person concerned indulged in criminal activities and in order to monitor and control his movements, opening of such rowdy sheet is necessary. The admitted facts of this case reveal that the petitioner was involved in at least six cases, out of which, four ended in his acquittal. However, a serious double murder case, in which he figured as A1, is pending against him. On these uncontroverted facts, it cannot be said that the respondents have opened rowdy sheet against him without existence of sufficient material as to his criminal activities. I am therefore, of the opinion that the impugned action of the respondents in opening the rowdy sheet against the petitioner does not call for interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is given liberty to approach the respondents for review in case he is acquitted in all the pending criminal cases. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.15190 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th JUNE, 2010. kvni [1] 1999 (6) ALT 249