A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner herein seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the rowdy sheet opened against him as illegal and unconstitutional and for consequential direction to delete the name from the rowdy sheet.

( 2 ) THE relevant averment in brief is that the petitioner, who worked as a senior compositor in Government Press retired as Government servant in 1984 and is receiving pension of Rs. 800/- p. m. Throughout his service there was no blemish. He is the President of All India Physical Welfare Organisation registered under Societies Registration Act with the object of maintaining unity among members, to promote sports and games, to inculcate the habit of physical exercises and for social service. While so he received a notice on 20-3-1985 to the effect that he was involved in Cr. No. 68/84 under Ss. 148 and 155a and C of the I. P. C. Subsequently C. C. No. 182 of 1985 was filed in the Court of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioner and two others alleging that there were communal clashes between two communities and tensions were prevailing. The said case is said to have been ended in acquittal on 17-7-1986. Subsequently Cr. No. 59/87 was registered against him for an offence under S. 325, I. P. C. wherein the petitioner is A-1 He is said to have beaten the complainant and A-2 had given a fist blow on the face of the complainant. No charge-sheet is said to have been filed as yet. Further in the remand case diary it was mentioned that the petitioner is also a rowdy sheet. It is then that he came to know that he was put under rowdy sheet. Though it was questioned as to on what ground he is put on the rowdy sheet and a representation to the Commissioner of Police was made was in vain. In order to put somebody s name in the rowdy sheet one has to comply with the Police Standing Order 742. As this is contrary to the provisions made in Police Standing Order 742 and since representation was made to the police officials and it did not yield any results the jurisdiction of this Court is moved.

( 3 ) THE averments in the counter-affidavit filed it is stated inter alia while the petitioner floated an association in the name of physical Welfare Association - himself as President - he is giving training to youths belonging only to certain areas of the old city. The training is in martial arts with lethal weapons. This is in order to help the Muslim youths in attacking any other community people and promoting ill-feelings and hatred towards Hindus. When the old city was in the grip of communal disturbances and tension was prevailing a case was registered in Cr. No. 68/84 under Ss. 144 and 145, I. P. C. That had resulted in quarrels. As the petitioner is habituated to commit offences involving breach of peace a rowdy sheet was opened in December, 1984. Ever since he was kept under watch. Though the case had ended in acquittal it has become necessary for the police to continue the surveillance on the petitioner. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second case registered against the petitioner has also ended in acquittal.

( 4 ) AS per the averments in the counter the petitioner is a rowdy sheet, some confidential reports of the Special Branch of Police show that the petitioner threatened the Managing Editor of Siasat daily for not publishing a news about his association and also threatened to burn the paper and that the local police were also directed to keep surveillance over him. It is further averred that the petitioner comes under one of the categories of the Police Standing Order, 742. According to that surveillance can be effected against a person who habitually commits or attempts to commit an offence involving breach of peace. Conviction is not necessary for person who is registered as rowdy sheet. Therefore the action of the police is within the rules.

( 5 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the cases have ended in acq

Click Here to Read the rest of this document