IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.38275 of 2025 DATED: 24.02.2026 Between:

Madhupathi Shiva Kumar ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Telangana and four (4) others. ...Respondents

ORDER:

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

“…to pass an order or direction or writ, more particularly in the nature of “WRIT OF MANDAMUS” declaring the action of respondent no. 5 in opening Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, besides against directions of this Honble court and contrary to the procedure laid under police standing orders and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to Close Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner, pending before the 5^th respondent…”

2. Heard Smt. B.Keerthi Reddy, representing Sri Ch.

Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner hails from a respectable middle-class family and is a law-abiding citizen, earning his livelihood by running a Mineral Water business and also participating in public and social service activities. Learned counsel would further submit that a Rowdy Sheet was opened against the petitioner in the year 2013 at Chandanagar Police Station in connection with certain criminal cases registered between 2012 and 2013. However, all the said cases have ended in acquittal and another case registered in the year 2022 was closed as “false”. Thus, as on today, no criminal case is pending against the petitioner. Learned counsel would contend that despite the acquittal of the petitioner in all the cases, the respondents have continued the Rowdy Sheet without reviewing it as required under the Police Standing Orders. It is further submitted that under the guise of continuation of the Rowdy Sheet, the police are frequently summoning the petitioner to the police station and harassing him. Hence, learned counsel seeks a direction to the respondents to close the Rowdy Sheet opened against the petitioner.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, would submit that a Rowdy Sheet was opened against the petitioner in the year 2013 at Chandanagar Police Station on the ground that the petitioner was involved in certain criminal cases registered in the years 2012 and 2013 within the jurisdiction of the Cyberabad Commissionerate. It is submitted that the said Rowdy Sheet is still in force. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that appropriate orders may be passed by this Court in accordance with law.

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 extortion from shopkeepers, traders and other residents. G. Persons who incite and instigate communal/caste or political riots.

H. Persons detained under the “AP Prevention of Dangero