IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No.38824 OF 2018

DATE : 12.12.2025

Between:

Vijay Kumar Yadav

…Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana & Others

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in opening the Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner in the 1st respondent police station even though the petitioner is not the habitual offender involving in breach of public peace and tranquility as prescribed under Police Standing Order No.601 as arbitrary, illegal, violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to close the Rowdy Sheet pending against the petitioner in the 1st respondent police station forthwith in the interest of

justice...........”

2. Heard Mr.P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader

for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed assailing the action of the respondent police authorities in opening and continuing a rowdy sheet against the petitioner, branding him as a habitual offender,

without there being any substantive or cogent material to justify such surveillance. It is contended that the action of the police is arbitrary, violative of the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Police Standing Orders (“A.P.P.S.O.”), particularly Standing Order 601-A. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks appropriate directions to the respondents for quashing the rowdy sheet and deleting his name from the concerned police records.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioner was involved in two criminal cases, namely, Crime No. 51 of 2016 and Crime No. 506 of 2018, and that the rowdy sheet was opened to monitor the petitioner’s movements in order to prevent him from indulging in further unlawful activities. He fairly submits that Crime No. 51 of 2016 culminated in C.C. No. 22 of 2018 before the Court of the XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kushaiguda, which was compounded before the Lok Adalat on 22.03.2019 following an amicable settlement between the parties. Further, Crime No. 506 of 2018 was taken on file as C.C. No. 357 of 2019 before the same Court and, after full trial, ended in acquittal by judgment dated 27.06.2022. He nevertheless contends that, considering the need for continued surveillance and to prevent potential breach of peace, the rowdy sheet has been maintained against the petitioner, and therefore prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The admitted position is that the rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner branding him as a habitual offender, purportedly under Standing Order 601-A of the A.P. Police Manual. The said Standing Order provides that a rowdy sheet may be opened against persons who habitually commit, abet, or attempt to commit offences involving breach of public peace and tranquility, or who are reasonably suspected of engaging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

7. However, the Standing Orders also mandate that there must be substantive and credible material to justify such surveillance. They further stipulate that:

(a) a minimum number of offences involving the individual should exist for consideration;

(b) there must be a continuing pattern of conduct posing a threat to public peace; and (c) the rowdy sheet must undergo a mandatory review every six months, during which the competent authority must record specific reasons in writing for its continuation.

8. It is also a settled principle of law, consistently recognized by the Hon’ble High Courts, that if a person has not been inv