Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, J.
Mohammed Mustafa – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 11485 of 2021
Decided On : 06-04-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 14, 19 - GHMC Act, 1955 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections – 324, 307, 420, 156, 143, 353 & 294(b), 34 - Election - List of ‘Rowdy Sheeters Board’ - Remove photograph - Issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring action of respondents in issuing proceedings opening rowdy sheet against him as illegal and unconstitutional, and for a consequential direction to respondents to remove photograph of petitioner from list of ‘Rowdy Sheeters Board’ in II-Town Police Station – Held, As held in Yerramsetti Venugopal Rao (supra), rowdy sheet can be continued (i) if his activities are prejudicial to maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquility in area; and (ii) victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him - Said grounds are lacking in present case - Therefore, continuation of said ‘rowdy sheet’ by police authorities against petitioners ignoring law laid down by this Court as well as Apex Court in judgments cited supra cannot be sustained - Proceedings opening rowdy sheet against petitioner are hereby quashed - Writ Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, more particularly, respondent No.5 herein, in issuing the proceedings in C.No.272/ACP/KMM/T/2020, dated 08.10.2020 opening rowdy sheet against him as illegal and unconstitutional, and for a consequential direction to the respondents to remove the photograph of the petitioner from the list of ‘Rowdy Sheeters Board’ in II-Town Police Station, Khammam.
2. Heard Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Rama Mohan Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home & Law appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. The contentions of the petitioner are as under:
(ii) He being the member of YSR Congress Party had participated in various political activities of YSR Congress Party and continues to do so.
(iii) On account of his political background, several political opponents developed enmity towards him and started filing false complaints against him.
(iv) Upon the political pressure, respondent police have registered certain criminal cases against the petitioner.
(v) When the respondent police had opened rowdy sheet against the petitioner to prevent him from acting as an Election Agency, he filed W.P. No.27718 of 2009, wherein this Court by order dated 27.01.2010, quashed the said rowdy sheet.
(vi) The petitioner had filed W.P. No.18868 of 2020 challenging the proceedings dated 08.08.2019 disqualifying him from participating in any election to be held under the GHMC Act, 1955 for a period of three years on the ground that he did not file election expenditure, and this Court vide order dated 16.11.2020 set aside the said proceedings.
(vii) The respondent police had registered various crimes against the petitioner under various offences so as to prevent him from contesting elections, the details of which are shown in the following tabular form.
| Sl. No | Crime/C.C./S.C. Number | Name of P.S./Court | Offences | Stage/ Result |
| 01. | C.C.No.311/2013 (Crime No.125/13 of II-Town P.S., Khammam | I Divisional Magistrate of First Class, Khammam | 143, 324, 353 & 294(b) r/w 34 IPC | Acquittal |
| 02. | Cr. No.154/ 2016 | II-Town P.S., Khammam | 171-E IPC & 123 of R.P. Act | Pending |
| 03. | Cr.No.153/2016 | II-Town P.S., Khammam | 191-E IPC & 123 of R.P. Act | Pending |
| 04. | Cr.No.389/17 | P.S. Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam (U) | 420 & 506 IPC | Trial |
| 05. | Cr.No.321/2018 | P.S. Saifabad, Hyd. | 406 & 420 IPC | Compromised |
(ix) In view of the above, opening/continuing of rowdy sheet against the petitioner is illegal.
(x) A person should be a habitual offender for the purpose of opening and maintaining of rowdy sheet, and the petitioner is not habitual offender.
(xi) Placed reliance on the principle laid down by a Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP) .
With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to declare the action of the respondents, more particularly, respondent No.5 in issuing proceedings C.No.272/ACP/KMM/T/2020, dated 08.10.2020 opening rowdy sheet against the petitioner as illegal and for a consequential direction to close the above said rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner.
4. The contentions of respondents, as per the contents of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5 are as under:
Point of Law : Rowdy sheet - rowdy sheet can be continued (i) if his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquility in the area; and (ii) the victims....
Rowdy sheet – Closure – Acquittal in one case and another case pending - Requirement of involvement in atleast more than two cases not fulfilled.
The court emphasized the discretionary jurisdiction of the concerned authority in reviewing the continuation of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner and held that it cannot interfere unless the exe....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
