B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE unsuccessful petitioner in W. P. No. 14104 of 1994 is the appellant in this appeal. He is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge disposing of the said writ petition filed by him with a direction to the respondents to review the rowdy sheet in accordance with law, taking into consideration the subsequent conduct of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. The said order is challenged on various grounds.

( 2 ) IN order to consider the question as to whether the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity requiring our interference, necessary facts leading to filing of this writ appeal may have to be noticed: the appellant herein invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to delete his name from the Rowdy Sheet No. 25, dated 15-12-1991 duly declaring the action of the respondents as illegal and void. According to the appellant, he was falsely implicated as Accused No. 1 in Crime no. 45 of 1990 on the file of Pattabhipuram Law and Order Police Station, Guntur for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the indian Penal Code.

( 3 ) THAT after registration of the said crime on 16-6-1990, the second respondent herein had opened the Rowdy sheet No. 25, dated 15-12-1991 as against the appellant herein registering him as a rowdy sheeter. The said action of the respondents herein is challenged on the ground that the same is not in accordance with the procedure contemplated in S. O. No. 742 of the Police Standing orders. It was contended before the learned single Judge that there is no justification on the part of the respondents in opening the rowdy sheet against the appellant herein. The action on the part of the respondents, according to the appellant, is ultra vires.

( 4 ) THE third respondent-Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattabhipuram Law and Order Police station, Guntur filed a detailed counter affidavit in which it is inter alia stated that on 18-6-1990 a case in Crime No. 45/90 was registered against the appellant herein on the complaint of one Kodali Surya Chandra Rao. The appellant herein was apprehended and later released on bail. A charge sheet was filed under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 23-7-1990.

( 5 ) HOWEVER, in the counter affidavit, it is further stated that rowdy sheet was opened against the appellant on 15-12-1991 as per the orders of the sub-Divisional Police Officer, Guntur Town. It is alleged that the appellant and his accomplices were "acknowledged associates and are known in the locality for their anti-social tendencies, aggressive behaviour and criminal activities. " Peculiarly, the respondents stated in the counter affidavit that a case in crime No. 57/91 for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the family members of the appellant herein on 27-3-1992 and another case in Crime No. 35/92 was registered against the others who were shown as accused in Crime No. 45/90, in which the appellant herein is one of the accused.

( 6 ) IT is not known as to the relevancy of those cases for opening of the rowdy sheet as against the appellant herein.

( 7 ) THE fact remains that the appellant herein is involved in only one case i. e. in Crime No. 45/90, which is later numbered as C. C. No. 218 of 1990 on the file of the Court of the learned VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. The short question that falls for consideration is as to whether the rowdy sheet opened against the appellant herein on 15-12-1991 is in conformity with the police Standing Orders?

( 8 ) IT is clear from a perusal of Standing Order No. 742 that to include a person s name in a rowdy sheet, such person shall be a habitual offender i. e. , he must habitually commit or abet the commission of offences involving breach of peace. In Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police a Di

Click Here to Read the rest of this document