At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to close rowdy sheet No.293/Rowdy/2007, dated 31-03-2007, opened against the petitioner.

The petitioner is a press reporter by profession. He was working in Vartha telugu daily newspaper. According to him, he wrote a news item against respondent No.3. The petitioner alleged that as an act of reprisal, respondent No.3 registered Crime No.13 of 2007 by falsely implicating him as accused No.2 therein on 07-02-2007 and later, opened a rowdy sheet against him on 31-03-2007 and the same was followed by registration of another Crime being Crime No.61 of 2007 on 18-06-2007 binding over the petitioner under Section 110 (e) of Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner, the action of respondent No.3 in opening a rowdy sheet is wholly vindictive and the same cannot be sustained in law.

In the Counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that the above-mentioned two crimes have been registered against the petitioner. It is stated that Crime No.13 of 2007 was registered as the petitioner allegedly forged a house site patta document in the name of Dr.Y.S.Rajasekhar Reddy, the then Chief Minister of A.P., under Indiramma Pathakam and that during the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, and a charge sheet was filed later. With regard to Crime No.61 of 2007, it is stated that the petitioner was moving in the Mandal and giving an impression in the public that he was still continuing as a reporter of Vaartha newspaper and that he is collecting information and provoking the public by spreading false information against the Police and that apprehending breach of peace, the said Crime was registered against him under Section 110 (e) Cr.P.C.

Under Standing Order No.601 of the A.P.Police Manual, the following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 80) may be opened for them under the orders of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO:

A. Persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbance to public order and security.

B. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108 (1) (i) and 110 (e) (g) of Cr.P.C.

C. Persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under Sections 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad City Police Act or under Section 3, Clause 12, of the A.P.Towns Nuisances Act.

D. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks.

E. Rowdy sheets for the rowdies residing in one Police Station but are found frequenting the other PSs area, can be maintained at all such Police Stations.

F. Persons, who intimidate by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means to part with movable or immovable properties or in the habit of collecting money by extortion from shopkeepers, traders and other residents.

G. Persons who incite and instigate communal/caste or political riots.

H. Persons detained under the “AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986” for a period of 6 months or more.

I. Persons who are convicted for offences under the Representatives of the Peoples’ Act for rigging and carrying away ballot paper Boxes and other polling material.

In Malak Singh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1981 SC 760) the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the scope of Rule 23.4 of the Punjab Police Rules which empowered the Punjab Police to maintain a surveillance register against the persons, who are proclaimed and habitual offenders, previous convicts etc. Dealing with the said provision, the Supreme Court held:

“Ordinarily the names of persons with previous criminal record alone are entered in the Surveillance Register. They must be proclaimed offender