Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N.TUKARAMJI
Mesam Nagaraju, S/o. Kuntaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed under article 226. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner challenges continuation of rowdy sheet. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's review of rowdy sheet maintenance. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. criteria for opening/maintaining rowdy sheets. (Para 7) |
| 5. requirement for closure of rowdy sheets after three years. (Para 8) |
| 6. lack of substantive evidence for rowdy sheet continuation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 7. infringement of fundamental rights under article 21. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 8. directions issued to ensure compliance with legal standards. (Para 16) |
| 9. writ petition allowed; rowdy sheet quashed. (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 3 in opening and continuing Rowdy Sheet No. 39/ SD-SPT/2015 dated 21-07-2015 against the petitioner in Chinna Koduru Police Station, Chinna Koduru, Siddipet District, as illegal, colorable exercise of power, contrary to the settled principles of legal position and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petition
The maintenance of a rowdy sheet requires credible evidence of habitual criminality and periodic reviews; mechanical continuation is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
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
