The maintenance of a rowdy sheet requires credible evidence of habitual criminality and periodic reviews; mechanical continuation is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

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 petitioner under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to close the Rowdy Sheet No. 39/SD-SPT/2015 dated 21-07-2015 against the petitioner in Chinna Koduru Police Station, Chinna Koduru Siddipet District and pass such other order or orders…”

2. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Gillella, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present Writ Petition has been instituted to challenge the action of respondent No. 3 in opening and continuing the rowdy sheet dated 21.07.2015 against the petitioner. It is contended that between the years 2014 and 2019, thirteen criminal cases were registered against the petitioner. Of these, ten cases have either culminated in acquittal or were amicably settled before the Lok Adalat. As on date, only three criminal cases remain pending against the petitioner. The learned counsel argues that, in the absence of any finding or material to show that the petitioner’s alleged conduct disturbed public peace or tranquility, or that it satisfies the criteria stipulated under Standing Order No. 601-A of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, the continued maintenance of the suspect/rowdy sheet is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the petitioner’s fundamental rights. Hence, indulgence of this Court is sought to direct the closure of the said rowdy sheet.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, relying on written instructions, submits that the petitioner has indeed been involved in several criminal cases; however, he fairly concedes that except for three pending cases, the rest have concluded as stated by the petitioner. It is further admitted that no fresh criminal case has been registered against the petitioner since the year 2021. Nevertheless, the learned Government Pleader contends that, considering the petitioner’s past conduct and its alleged adverse impact on public peace and order, the concerned police authorities have, from time to time, sought and obtained permission to extend the rowdy sheet to monitor the petitioner’s activities. Therefore, it is argued that the petitioner’s challenge to the continuation of the rowdy sheet is untenable and that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the material available on record.

6. As per the record, it is undisputed that the rowdy sheet against the petitioner was opened in 2015 and has been periodically renewed and maintained by the concerned police authorities. The justification offered is that the petitioner was involved in several criminal cases, thereby warranting surveillance under the category of “habitual o