Syed Rasheed. S/o. lsmait v. 2'l of the Constitution of lndia and therefore quash the

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrrumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma'l be pleased to direct the Respondent No.5 and 6 not to call the Petitioner herein tr the Paloncha Town Police Station, Paloncha, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, on a regular basis in the interest of lustice pending disposal of the above writ petition. |.A.NO:2 OF 2021 Petilion under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crr:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend Proceedings in C.No.1B4lSDPOlPVClzl2l , dt. 28-06-2021 of the 5th Respondent herein in opening Rowdy sheet against the Peti:ioner herein pending disposal of the above writ petition. |.A.NO:3 OF 2021 Between:

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, +ll Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Director General of Police, Telangana State, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Bhadradri Kothagudem D strict. 4. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Paloncha, Bhatlradri Kothagudem District. /'

5. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Paloncha, Bhadradri l":othagudem District 6. The Station House Officer, Paloncha Town Police Statio'r, Paloncha, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. .....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS r .l:)Blb\ i,jl I AND Sved Rasheed. s/o. lsmail, Aqed 48 years, occ; Social worker and Business, Rl/o. C'unOf i Nrgrr, 5th Ward, Piloncha-Village and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. .....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Petition 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 vacate the interim order dated 1711112021 in W.P.No.29110/2021' Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI ARAVIND SAHU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI A.RADHA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents : SRI M.SRINIVAS' AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER + i. ,, ;, r" t { --rtr . i t ;t + I 1$,' &ti. ;.:t .--i"<rcqtx**"%!ls . ') THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUK/\RAMJI WRIT P ETTTION No .29110 0F 2021 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 ol Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief " .. .pteased 1o rssue a writ, order or orders more p,articulady one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to de'clare the proceedings of the Sth Respondent Sub-Divisiona'l Police Officer, Paloncha who videC.No.l84/SDP.O/PV'C/2021' dt. 28/06/2021 in granting permission to 6th Respondent Station House Officer, Paloncha Town Police litittion, to open Rowdy Sheet against the Petitioner herein as per A.P. Police Standing Order No.601-A (APPMITSPM OrCer 601A) as being arbitrary, illegal without any application c,f mind as being violative of the law laid down by the Hon'ble {iupreme Court of lndia and fhis Hon'ble Couri conceming APPM/TSPM 601-A and violative of Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner under Articles 14 and 21 of the Con:;tttution of lndia and therefore quash the same in the interesl ctf iustice and pass......"

2. Heard [Vlr. Aravind Sahu, leanerd counsel representing Mr. A.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

3.1 . Learned counsel for the petitioner subnlits that the respondents/police authorities, without properly appreciating the factual background, have opened a rowdy sheet against the petitioner on the premise that he was involved in certain crimes He argues that the offences registered against the petitioner *:1 .!- \ rwry- 2 neither relate to nor threaten public peace and tranquility, which is an essential precondition for opening or continuing a rowdy sheet. He further contends that this Court, in several judgments, has held that when no crime is registered after the opening of a rowdy sheet, the police authorities are obligated to conduct a periodic review and close the sheet unless the individual is subsequently involved in offences affecting public order.

3.2. Learned counsel points out that none of the cases registered against the petitioner pertain to disturbance of public peace. ln fact, out of six crimes, the police themselves filed final reports classifying the allegations as "false." Thus, the very basis for opening the rowdy sheet, much less its continuance, is legally unsustainable. He further submits that although this Court, by order dated 17.11.2021, suspended the operation of the rowdy sheet dated 28.06.2021 and directed the petitioner to appear before the Station House Officer, Paloncha Town Police Station on every 2nd and 4th Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 1 1:00 a.m., the petitioner has fully complied with these interim directions. Since e rowdy sheet itself lacks legal foundation, he prays that the me be quashed 3

4. Learned Assistant Government pleader, on written instructions, submlts that the petitioner had involve,d himself in six criminal cases and, on that basis, was classifiecl as a habitual offender warranting the opening of a rowdy sheet. l.1e submits that although the interim order of this Court has suspended the operation of the rowdy sheet, the petitioner has not complied with the direction requiring personal appearance before the police. He therefore seeks vacating of the interim order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. I have perused the material available on record

6. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to th,: opening of a rowdy sheet on 2806.2021 . The stand of the respondents is that, in view of the petitioner's involvement in six criminal cases, he was treated as a habitual offender. However, the responrJents have not placed any material to demonstrate how the petitioner,s alleged conduct satisfies the criteria stipulated under stancling order No. 601-A of the Andhra Pradesh police Manual.

7. lt is pertinent to note that Standing Order No. 601_A enumerates the specific circumstances under which a rowdy sheet may be opened against an individual. A close rr:ading of the Standing Order indicates that mere involvement in multi ple crimes 4 \*.--1 - is not, by itself, sufficient. The foundational requirement is that the individual must be involved in activities that adversely affect public peace, tranquility, or the security of the community. Judicial pronouncements of this Court, including Puttagunta Pulla Rao v. State of A-P., 2004 (2) ALD 36, and Shaik Mahaboob Basha v. State of A.P., 2015 SCC Online Hyd 166, consistently emphasize that rowdy-sheeting is a serious invasion of personal liberty under Article 21 of lhe Constitution, and therefore must be resorted to strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders. Courts have repeatedly held that indiscriminate opening of rowdy sheets without assessment of threat to public order is unconstitutional and liable to be quashed' g. ln the present case, the respondents/police authorities appear to have opened the rowdy sheet.merely on the basis of six ,} criminal cases, without any independent assessment or finding that the petitioner's conduct posed a threat to public peace or order. There is no material to indicate that the circumstances under Standing Order No. 601-A were satisfied. Such mechanical action falls short of the constitutional and statutory requirements governing Preventive Policing \ 7

9. Having regard to these aspects, and in view rll the failure of the respondents to justify the opening and continuance of the rowdy sheet in terms of Standing Order No. 601-A rlf the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, the impugned action is unsustainable. Accordingly, the rowdy sheet dated 28.06.',2021, already suspended by this Court, is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents/police authorities are directed to tilke immediate steps for closure of the rowdy sheet

10. lt is, however, clarified that this order shall n,:t preclude the respondents from initiating fresh action, including opening of a rowdy sheet, in strict compliance with Standing Order No. 601-A and other provisions of law, if circumstances so warrant in futurp

11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. To SD/. C. DEEPIKA tstrANT REGISTRAR /,1\P .iSEcTlON OFFICER .r,); at Hvderabad. t, State of Telangana ^.:':"--. '1 . The Principal Secretary, Home Department' SecretJ z iilr6-"[[? ceneral of Police, Telangana State' ftvoelgla.o 5. +i.iI 5iip"iiit".o""iof Police, Bhadradri Kothagudem District ;. iil; nJEitio"ir superinte"nollit orForiC", Palon6ha' Bha'lradri Kothasudem s. ind 5rO Divisional Police Officer, Paloncha, Bhadradri l(othagudem District 6. iflJ Stutio" ftouse Otricer, Paloncha Town Police Staticn' Paloncha' Z. i*i"CC. to Cp FOn HOfVf i, ff igf, Court for the State o'rlelangana at e di,""cCt" s'nrl.'nnonn KRIsHNA, Advocate (oPUCl 9. Two CD CoPies Bhadradri Kothagudem District' Hvderabad. [OUT] District. SA GJP ! i HIGH GOURT DATED:1211112025 ORDER WP.No.29110 of 2021 I !i + t '*,..' : ,i |F' .r i \t .. - fr.::' 1Sf"' lllltY . .'.i.j:ii.., . -aE tlr ' - -r-O--.} ' #F* '''*''?i'' ALLOWING THE W.P ' ::" ::s*i - WITHOUT COSTS. ',1@:;: ++ ..==jr 1n l'J S ra r(. o o ?1 il0ll zth $( t) t t \-- st * cT €-O i a ..:xi& '',,:,W ,=fr =#oS' &rA '{dE.:r+-- . ,;i :ff, , iir,# ,-i& .*& .iE {s tPr. .t-'i - .Ii-i ,..lS ,i ,..,.. :, .ai, ,.:1. && i3;{; .ralE-r,:- i. -r' -r: :- - )l - .a ,il $ 3. I + {, f i T I I a i. *n i"t $":" I t. 'l_i,+1-1 t 5 !. i\ i1 +i ijr) ,. l{