2. According to the petitioner, he is an agriculturist. Due to property dispute, his paternal uncle lodged a complaint with the Sub-Inspector of Police, M.Reddiapatty Police Station, Virudhunagar District and that a case in Crime No.99 of 2002 was registered against the petitioner and others, under Sections 448, 427 and 506(2) IPC. As there was an illegal demand to delete the name of the petitioner and his family members from the criminal case, the same was refused by the petitioner. The Sub-Inspector of Police, M.Reddiapatty Police Station, became inimical towards the petitioner and others. Though a final report was filed in C.C.No.100 of 2003, on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai, the criminal Court acquitted the petitioner of the charges, as no witnesses supported the prosecution.

3. Another criminal case in Crime No.435 of 2004 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 365 and 307 IPC and at the time of filing of the writ petition, the same was pending committal in P.R.C. No.12 of 2005 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that though the criminal case registered against him in 2003 had ended in acquittal, on the basis of the information given by the then Sub-Inspector of Police, M.Reddiapatty Police Station, his name was included in the History Sheet (Rowdies), by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aruppukottai Sub-Division, Virudhunagar, the second respondent herein and that the petitioner has been frequently directed to appear before the police, under the pretext of enquiry and surveillance. As retention of the petitioner in History Sheet (Rowdy) has affected his reputation in the society, he made a representation, dated 25.07.2005 to the second respondent, to delete his name. As the said representation was not considered, he was constrained to file W.P.No.7031 of 2005.

5. By an order, dated 03.08.2005, this Court directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar, to pass orders on the representation. Pursuant to the directions, of this court, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aruppukottai Sub-Division, Aruppukottai, has rejected the request, which is impugned in this present writ petition.

6. Assailing the correctness of the impugned order, Mr.T.Muruganantham, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the first respondent has failed to consider that when the impugned order was passed only one case was pending against the petitioner in P.R.C.No.12 of 2005, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai. The other case in Crime No.99 of 2002 registered under Sections 448, 427 and 506(2) IPC, on account of property dispute, which culminated in C.C.No.100 of 2003, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai, had ended in acquittal.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further contented that the History Sheet (Rowdy List) has been opened mechanically by the second respondent, without proper consideration of the facts and the impugned order of rejection, is not in accordance with Police Standing Orders 747 and 749.

8. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Selvaraj and others v. The Inspector of Police, Kaliakavilai Police Station, Kanyakumari District and others reported in 2010-1-L.W. (Crl.) 497, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pendency of a single case without any conviction is not a valid ground to include the name of the petitioner in the list of History Sheeted Rowdies. He also submitted that continuation of the petitioner in the said sheet, amounts to violation of his right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. For the above said reasons, he prayed that a suitable direction may be issued to the respondents to remove the name of the petitioner from the History Sheet.

9. Per contra, based on the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintend