IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.22409 of 2024 Date: 18.03.2026 Between:

Gangaraboina Mahendar ..Petitioner And The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and five others ..Respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue a Writ, Direction or orders more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in opening rowdy sheet against the petitioner herein in terms of the Police Standing Orders and keeping the petitioner under surveillance and summoning the petitioner to the police station without any reason is challenged in this writ petition as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 19 (1) (d) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to close the rowdy sheet purportedly opened against the petitioner under the instructions of the Assistant Commissioner of Police by the SHO at P.S. Bachannapet and pass…”

2. Heard Mr.N.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner hails from respectable family and he is a law abiding citizen and he is doing agriculture. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in view of the involvement of the petitioner in four cases i.e., Crime No. 76 of 2016, 110 of 2016, 115 of 2020 and 40 of 2021, a rowdy sheet/surveillance sheet has been maintained against him. The main grievance of the petitioner is that as on today, there is only one case pending against the petitioner herein. However, without considering the said fact and also the procedure laid down under the A.P.Police Manual, the respondents have issued the above said rowdy sheet against the petitioner herein and they are continuing the same which is arbitrary, illegal and also contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions. Learned counsel would further submit that under the guise of opening and continuation of rowdy sheet, the respondents-police are calling the petitioner to the police station and harassing him by making him to wait in the police station for hours together. With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to close the above said rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner.

4. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.4 stating that, in view of the involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid crimes, the Police, Bachannapet Police Station, has opened a rowdy sheet against him vide C.No.335/ACP-JND/2020, dated 15.09.2020. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, would submit that, as of now only one case is pending against the petitioner and he also seeks to pass appropriate orders.

5. Maintenance of rowdy sheets is governed by Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Police Manual, Part-I, Volume II, which reads as under:

“601. The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 80) may be opened for them under the orders of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO.

A. Persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbance to public order and security.

B. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(1) (i) and 110(e)

and (g) of Cr.P.C.

C. Persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under sections 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad City Police Act or under section 3, clause 12, of the AP Towns Nuisances Act.

D. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks.

F. Persons who intimidate by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means to part with movable or immovable properties or in the habit of collecting money by