Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 743
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
Komaram Venkanna Dora – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. No. 2309 of 2020
Decided On : 06-10-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : J. Satya Prasad
For the Respondent: Assistant Government Pleader
The opening and continuation of a rowdy sheet must be based on cogent reasons and cannot be done in a mechanical, routine, or cavalier manner.
Headnote:
ROWDY SHEET - OPENING AND CONTINUATION - LEGALITY - IMPACT ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - PRINCIPLES: 1. Opening of a rowdy sheet and its continuation are two different concepts guided by different parameters as laid down in the respective Standing Orders of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. 2. Opening of a rowdy sheet is not justified merely because a person was involved in some criminal cases, but he must habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security. 3. Continuation of a rowdy sheet is permissible if the authorities are of the considered view that the person's activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquillity in the area or the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him. 4. The orders for opening or continuing a rowdy sheet must be based on cogent reasons and not passed in a mechanical, routine, or cavalier manner. 5. Obstructive surveillance against a person due to the opening of a rowdy sheet violates their fundamental rights and cannot be justified without cogent reasons.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a scheduled tribe member, was involved in several criminal cases due to his activism in protecting the rights of tribals. All the cases ended in acquittal, but a rowdy sheet was opened against him in 2011. The petitioner challenged the opening and continuation of the rowdy sheet, arguing that it violated his fundamental rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the opening of the rowdy sheet was not justified as there was no evidence that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to public order or security. The court also found that the continuation of the rowdy sheet was not supported by cogent reasons and was therefore illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether the opening of a rowdy sheet against the petitioner was justified? 2. Whether the continuation of the rowdy sheet was legal?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several precedents to establish the principles governing the opening and continuation of rowdy sheets. The court held that the authorities must have cogent reasons to open or continue a rowdy sheet, and that these reasons must be based on the person's activities being prejudicial to public order or security.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to close the rowdy sheet against the petitioner.
ORDER :
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
1. The pitiable case of the petitioner herein who is a scheduled tribe is, for the sin of espousing the cause of the fellow innocent victim tribes before the Collector & District Magistrate of East Godavari District imploring to ameliorate their conditions, he was implicated in several criminal cases and ultimately branded as rowdy sheeter. He filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondent police authorities to close the rowdy sheet that was opened against him in the year 2011.
2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:
(a) The petitioner is a graduate and he belongs to Koya community of Scheduled Tribe. In order to protect the interest of tribals in the agency area of East Godavari District, they established Aadivasi (Girijana) Samkshema and Samskruthika Sangham in the year 2002 with the permission of ITDA Project Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioner worked as General Secretary of said Sangham. On behalf of the said Sangham, the petitioner and others used to petition to the Collector, ITDA Project Officer and other revenue officials about the travails of Girijans and how the non-tribals were exploiting them. As a member of Scheduled Tribe, the petitioner actively participated in various programmes in order to protect their rights. In that course the petitioner and others submitted a representation dated 18.01.2010 to the District Collector about the encroachments made by non-tribals into the tribal lands and their other atrocious acts. The Collector vide his letter in L.Dis.F2/237/2010 dated 22.01.2010 while forwarding their representation, instructed the Project Officer, RDO and other revenue officers to implement all the tribal laws in true spirit and see that there would not be any violations.
(b) The petitioner's further case is that bore grudge against the petitioner and some others, the vested interests and some politicians got foisted false cases against them. The petitioner is concerned, he was falsely implicated in (i) Sessions Case No. 512/2011 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry (Cr. No. 41/2011) for the offences under Sections 384, 354 r/w. 34 IPC which was ended in acquittal (ii) C.C. No. 221/2011 on the file of JFCM, Rampachodavaram for the offences under Sections 420, 506 IPC and ended in acquittal on 07.12.2011 (iii) C.C. No. 229/2011 on the file of JFCM, Rampachodavaram under Section 420 IPC and ended in acquittal on 25.02.2012 (iv) C.C. No. 220/2011 on the file of JFCM, Rampachodavaram under Section 384 IPC (Cr. No. 53/2011) ended in acquittal on 22.02.2012 (v) C.C. No. 62/2011 (Cr. No. 20/2011) on the file of JFCM, Rampachodavaram under Section 324 IPC ended in acquittal on 22.02.2012.
(c) Though all the above false cases were ended in acquittal, however, the SHO, Rampachodavaram (5th respondent) obtained permission from the higher authorities to open rowdy sheet against the petitioner citing the above crimes. Upon his request, the 3rd respondent permitted to open rowdy sheet on 20.08.2011. Accordingly Rowdy Sheet No. 01/2011 of Rampachodavaram P.S. was opened against him. All the cases mentioned supra were foisted only to intimidate the petitioner and other members and they were ended in acquittal, but the rowdy sheet was opened showing those cases. The petitioner was not a habitual offender and he only fought for the rights of the Girijans. Subsequent to 2011 he was not involved in any cases. However, every year his rowdy sheet is reviewed and extended mechanically causing any amount of embarrassment to the petitioner and his family members and also violating his fundamental rights of liberty and free movement.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. The 3rd respondent filed counter, while denying the petition averments, inter alia contends thus.
(a) The petitioner has scant respect tow
