*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY + WRIT PETITION No.36878 of 2013 Between:

Modem Mallesham … Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 5 others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 21.11.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

1. Whether Reporters of Local : Yes/No newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?

2. Whether the copies of judgment : Yes/No may be marked to Law Reports/Journals

3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship : Yes/No wish to see the fair copy of judgment __________________________________ VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.36878 of 2013 % 21.11.2025 Between :

# Modem Mallesham … Petitioner AND $ The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 5 others … Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri A. Prabhakar Rao ^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, Asst. Govt. Pleader for Home < GIST :

> HEAD NOTE :

? Cases referred :

1. MANU/JK/0325/2025 2. MANU/AP/0224/2022

3. 1998 (4) ALT 284

4. 2000(1) ALD (CRI) 117

5. W.P.No.34211 of 2023 decided on 01.02.2024 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.36878 of 2013

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking declaration that the action of the respondents in opening and continuing rowdy sheet against the petitioner more particularly without conducting the mandatory periodical review of the continuation of the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against him.

2. Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. As can be seen from the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petition, the respondents opened a rowdy sheet against the petitioner on the ground that he was allegedly involved in Crime No.115 of 2011 of Nekkonda Police Station, Warangal District for the offences under Sections 148, 307, 501, 506 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Crime No.13 of 2012 of Khanapur Police Station, Warangal District for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, he was falsely implicated and in the said cases and the opening of the rowdy sheet resulted in constant harassment, including display of his photographs in police stations, frequent summons and prolonged questioning.

4. It is further stated by the petitioner that rowdy sheet was opened against him in the year 2012 and has been continued thereafter without any periodic review by the officials, which is contrary to the police standing orders. It is further stated by the petitioner that at the time of opening the rowdy sheet, only two cases were pending and that a rowdy sheet cannot be opened or continued merely on the basis of pendency of two criminal cases.

II. COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4

5. In response to the above said averments made by the petitioner, the respondent No.4 filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was involved in several cases i.e., Crime No.115 of 2011 of Nekkonda Police Station, Crime No.13/2012 of Khanapur Police Station, Crime Nos.5 of 2000, 102 of 2000, 104 of 2000 and 74 of 2003 of Duggandi Police Station. It is stated that in view of these cases, it became necessary to curb and curtail unlawful activities of the petitioner. Thus, after obtaining permission from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narsampet, Warangal Rural District on 06.05.2012, a rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner has been facing trial in two cases and if rowdy sheet is closed, the petitioner will influence the witnes