THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.22334 OF 2018

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in opening the rowdy sheet against the petitioner herein without conducting any sort of enquiry and despite acquittal from most of the cases and without considering the age of the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondent police to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner herein, and to grant.......”

2. Heard Ms.T.Shobha Rani, learned counsel representing Mr.N.Hari Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed questioning the action of the respondent police authorities in opening and continuing a rowdy sheet against the petitioner without due consideration of his acquittals in most of the criminal cases registered against him and without conducting the mandatory periodical review as contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders. It is submitted that the continued maintenance of the rowdy sheet is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the petitioner prays for appropriate directions for closure of the rowdy sheet and removal of his name from the police registers.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that the petitioner has been notorious for his unlawful conduct and has been creating fear among the public as a land grabber. Accordingly, a rowdy sheet was opened against him in the year 2017, and after requisite reviews, the same has been continued in accordance with law.

5. It is further submitted that, although about twenty (20) criminal cases were registered against the petitioner, except one case, all others have ended in acquittal. Nevertheless, based on the petitioner’s past conduct and influence, it is asserted that local residents are reluctant to lodge complaints against him due to fear. Therefore, the respondent police contend that the continuance of the rowdy sheet is necessary to monitor his movements and maintain public order. It is also claimed that the police authorities are strictly following Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual, and that the maintenance of the rowdy sheet is essential for preventive surveillance. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

6. I have carefully perused the material available on record and considered the submissions advanced by both sides.

7. As per the record, the rowdy sheet against the petitioner was opened in 2017 and is being continued till date. It is not in dispute that only one criminal case is presently pending against the petitioner, and that all other cases have resulted in acquittal. The respondents have not furnished any recent material or instance of unlawful activity after 2019 to justify the continuance of surveillance.

8. Standing Order 601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual governs the opening, maintenance, and closure of rowdy sheets. In particular, Standing Order 601-A(2) mandates that:

“Rowdy sheets shall be reviewed every six months by the competent authority to assess whether their continuance is necessary.”

9. The said provision ensures that the right to privacy and personal liberty of citizens is protected from arbitrary or prolonged surveillance. The maintenance of a rowdy sheet, though preventive in nature, must be based on current and credible information, not merely on past allegations or acquittals.

10. In the present case, there is no material to demonstrate that any such six-monthly review was conducted after 2019, nor is there any contemporary evide