High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents in not reviewing the case of the Petitioner as per the orders of this Hon ble Court passed in W.P. No.17218t2010, dated 2.9102t2016 as illegal, violative of principles of natural justice, violation of the Orders of this Honble Court in Wp No.17218t2010 and also in violation of Articles 14 and 21 ofthe Constitution of lndia, and consequently direct the Respondents to close the Rowdy Sheet against the Petitioner and stop displaying the Photograph of the Petitioner in the police Station of PS Pargi. ! I i, {!'t.. .i*,,_ - , , .i,. .* . ti{rr. r. lA NO: 1 OF 2:O1s Petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Res;pondents to consider the case of the Petitioner in pursuance of the order of the llon'ble High court passed in wp No.1721gt2010, dated 2gto2t2o16 by close the Rowdy Sheet against the Petitioner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. counsel for flre petitioner : SRr K.GoVERDHAN REDDY counsel for the Respondents No.ltos: sRl D.,RADEE,, AGp FoR H.ME The Court made the following: ORDER ';l.a 1 .l;il - r I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JT]STICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.18825 OF 2018 ORDER: This Writ Peuuon is fiicd undcr Article 226 of Constitr-rrion of India sccking the following rclicf/s:- "...to issue an appropriate Writ, <lrdcr or clircction, motc particular:ly one in thc naturc of u,rit o[ Nlanclamus, cleclaring the inactiorr of dte Respondents in no revicuring tl're casr: of thc Petitioner as pet the orders of this Hon ble Court passcd in W.P. No.i7218/2010, dated 29/(12/2016 as iliegal, r,iolativc of principlcs o[ naturai iusticc, violation of the Otclers of this FIonL''lc Court in Wi) No.17218/2010 arrd also irr violation of ,\rticles 14 and 2l oF the (lonstitution of India, and consequcndy dircct the ltesp<;ndents to close the Ros'd!' Sheet against the Petitioncr and stc-rp ciisplai;ing thc Photograph of the Petitioner in the Police Station of PS l)argi, anc{ pass......."

2. None appears on behalf r>[ the pctitioner

3. Heard Mr.D.Pradeep, learned z\ssistant Govcrntnent Pleader for flome appearing for rcsporldent Nos. t tr> 5

4.1. Learned Assistant Governmcnt Plcader flor Florne submits that the police had opened zi ilowdy Slrcet against the petitioner (rn

17.06.201,0, and the satne Lras been rcnewecl Fr<-rm time to timc in accordance with departrnental proccdure. It is furthcr stated that between 201,0 afld 2018, ncl fresh criminai cases wefe registered against the petitionef. I-I.:wrvcr, thc police cofltend that this 'r-as 1\ \ ,,ti . .:i::, : -if' ii!,i Li tii: : riH#; i' , 'qt€ 2 primarilr: rccause no indir.idual camc forr.vard to lodge complaints against thc pcutioncr owrng to fear of reprisal, and thcrcf<rrc, no new offenccs were formallv registcrccl during that pcriod

4.2. It ir; furthcr submitted that [rom 2009 to 2023, a roral of nineteen i19) criminal cases werc rcgistered against the pcuuoncr, ()ut of these, ten (10) were disposcd oI through scrtlcmenr bcFore the Lok Adalat and thc oflfenccs wcre compouncled bef<>r:c the competcrit Court. Four (4) cases endcd in accluittal, rvhile in nvo (2) cases, thr: final reports were filed with endorscments of "Ltck of eaidence" and 'false cane" respectivelv

4.3. As of the date of hearing, rrvo (2) criminal cases rcmain pending, namely, C.C. No. 595 of 2021 and C.C. No. 564 of 2O2O '['he fornrer involves offlences under Sections 506 and 504 of the Indian P:nal Code, 1860, read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the latter pertains to offences under Sections 188 and 269 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, l)rug O:fenders, Goondas, ImmoruLTruffrc Offenders and Land I ?! Grabbers Act, 1986 ('PD Act") ,triti{;ri. "-,r"frffi,* rJtlfli l iti L :r . ,i, .. a_ .. r.;ql i 1 .ii:1a., 3

4.4. The learned Assistant Govefnment Pleadet filAy concedes that the Rowdy Sheet was opened considering the number of cfimes previously registered against the petitioner and treating him as a. habitual oflfcndcr. It is thus contended that continued sun ei[ance over thc petitioner is rvarranted to maintain public order and peace, and ther:c'Forc, thc petition challenging the continuation of the Itclwdy Shect descn'cs to bc dismissed.

5. I have carcflully perused thc ffIatctial on record and considered the rival submissions.

6. As pcr the prosecuti()n, the Rowdv Shect against the petitioner was opened and is being continued on the premisc that he is a habitual offender. Howcver, it is an admitted position that, at pfesent, only two criminal cases are pending against him, while all others, seventeen (I7) in total, havc concludcd either by setdement, acquittal, or closure upon filing of final reports.

7. It is pertinent to note that the objcct of opening and maintaining a Rowdy Sheet is to monitor and control the activities o[ persons habitually involved in offences affecting public peace, order, and moral conduct. The procedure for opening and ]' 'r:diltli ir!,ffr, : ri:ifild" ' iI 4 - maintainin,4 such -shcets is governed by Standing Ordcr No. 601-A of the Ancrhra Praclcsh Prrlice Nlanual.

8. As pcr Standing Order 601-A, a ltowdy Sheet mav be opened against pcrs()ns rvh<> habitually commit offcnccs involving brcach o[ peace or moral turpitude; Have been bound ovcr under Sections 101 t() 110 of thc Bharuaya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (correspr>nding to the old CrPC provisions); or habirually inv<>lvcd in cxtor:t.on, land grabbing, or organrz,cd, criminal acdvities. Furtherm,rre, the Standing Order provides that even a pcrson who has been rlcquittcd in criminal cases may conrinue to havc a Rclwdy Shcet maintained against him if his conduct continlres to p()sc a thrcat to :ublic pcace or safety, and such sun,cillancc is considered nccessafl,'

9. In ,-he present case, the tespondent police authorities justify thc continuance of the Rowdy Sheet solely on the ground thar the petitione:: is a habitual offender. However, it is well settled by a scries of judicial pronouncements that the continuance of a Rowdy Sheet m'.rst be supported by concrete matcr.ial that satisfies the conditions laicl down in Standing Order 601-A. Mcre ..f.r.n.. to('1. r"r4."11. " i'i,!off., '{W,i. 'i "'I {SfF} i. '"'r.:r' i'l fi.i!,,,,,. 5 r the number of past cases registered against an individual, without demonstrating continued involvement in activities prejudicial to public order or tranquiliry, is insufficient to iustify surveiliance

10. The explanation offercd bv thc rcspondcnt authorities that no cases are being registered against the pctitioncr due t<l public fear:, docs not satisfy thc statutory 1;s adrninisu.ativc threshold required for rnaintaining a Rowdy Shect. 'fhe authoritics havc failcd to placc an,y evidence or contcmp()raneous rccord shctwing that thc pctitioner's present conduct cnclangers public Peacc ttr saflery, or that his surveillance remains nccessan, in the intercst of law and a 1,1,. Having regard to the fact that scvcnteen r-,f the nitrctcen cascs have been closed either through acquittai, settlemcnt, or final report, and that only nvo cases are prcscndy pending, this Court finds no compelling material tc-r sustain the classification of the petitioner as a habitual offe.nder. Consequentlv, the continuance oF the Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner 1S unwarranted and unsustainable. \ .tf ; ,,ih" i :!'.d: '4'{n.i,y,,. 6 1,2. Accordingl1,, the ltor,vdy Sheet maintained against the pcdrionci rs hercbr, sct aside. Hou,cver, it is clanficd thar thc rcspondcrrt policc authorities shall be at iiberrv t() rcc()nsider thc opcning (,r continuation o[ a Rowdy Shect afresh in the funrre, i[ circumstanccs s() warrant, and if fresh material is sathered that satisfies thc rcquirements of Standing Order 601-A i3. Witir tlris obscrvation and liberty, the petition is allorved. ['iicrc shrll be n<> ordcr as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII To, 1 The PrincipqLsecretary. Home Department. Hyderabad, Telangand State SD/.M. OSMAN ALI BAIG TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Telangana State

2. The superintendent of porice,, Vikarabad District, vikarabad. 3- The Deputy superintendent of police, pargi, Vikarabad District. 4 The Circle lnspector of Police., Police Station Pargi. Vikarabad District. 5. The Sub-lnspector of police, Police Station Pargi. Vikarabad District. 6. one c;c to sRl K.GOVERDHAN REDDY, Advocate. Iopuc] 7. Two c;cs to GP FoR HOME, High court for the state of retangana. [oUT] 8. Two C;D Copies. BSK BSW ,,li,lil:,i ul, : ,i t! ij HIGH COURT DATED:2511112025 ( THE s 1 4 il/1q /u$ i' z * * ORDER WP.No.18825 of 2018 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOIJT COSTS 1\ \ ' 1l li'