MILAND v. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR RESPONDNET’S) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.3792/2023 DATED 2/9/2023 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DELETE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FROM - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15254 WP No. 101343 of 2025 HC-KAR ROWDY REGISTER MAINTAINED BY 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

#1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: A. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari and quash the impugned order bearing no.3792/2023 dated 2/9/2023 passed by 2nd respondent, vide Annexure-B in the interest of justice and equity. B. Issue a Writ of Mandamus delete the name of the petitioner from rowdy register maintained by 3rd and 4th respondent vide Annexure-C, in the interest of justice and equity. C. Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the ends of justice and equity.

#2. Heard Sri. Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA appearing for the respondents.

#3. The petitioner gets embroiled in three crimes. Owing to the fact that the petitioner has got himself embroiled in three crimes, the name of the petitioner is drawn in the list of rowdies - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15254 WP No. 101343 of 2025 HC-KAR maintained before the Gadag Rural Police Station. The Petitioner after acquittal in all the cases, submits a representation seeking removal of his name from the list of rowdies. The non-removal of the name of the petitioner, is, what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

#4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the facts and grounds set out in the petition.

#5. The learned AGA submits that there are three cases pending against the petitioner and, therefore, the name of the petitioner cannot be removed from the list of rowdies.

#6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would join the issue in clarifying that, the name of the petitioner in all those three cases, which the learned AGA seeks to project, have ended in acquittal. Few of them pertain to the offences under the Atrocities Act. The offences are laid notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner himself belongs to the scheduled caste. On all scores, learned counsel submits representation of the petitioner should merit consideration. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15254 WP No. 101343 of 2025 HC-KAR

#7. In the light of the aforesaid submissions and contra- submissions, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition with a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation to respondent No.2, seeking removal of his name from the list of rowdies. In the event, the representation is submitted by the petitioner, the said representation shall merit consideration at the hands of respondent No.2 in consonance with the law declared by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of B.S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.4504/2021 and connected matter disposed on 22.04.2022 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows: “GUIDELINES FOR ROWDY/HISTORY SHEETING: i. Before entering the name of an individual to the Register of Rowdies, the jurisdictional police shall collect and collate the material information concerning him and frame the proposal for registration on that basis. ii. A brief proposal notice shall be sent to the individual concerned in a sealed cover with an option to submit his representation within two weeks as to why his name should not be registered as a rowdy. However, there is no need to afford a personal hearing. In exceptional cases notice may be dispensed with for reasons to be recorded in the Register of Rowdies. iii. In terms of Clause (5), Order 1059 of Superintendent of Police or the Sub – Divisional Police Officer shall not accord approval for entering the name of individual concerned to the Register of Rowdies without calling for records and objectively considering the same. He shall briefly record his reasons for according the approval and mark a copy thereof to the individual forthwith, with a mention that he may petition the Police Complaints Authority, against the same. the Manual, iv. The jurisdictional Police shall compulsorily once in two years, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15254 WP No. 101343 of 2025 HC-KAR undertake a periodic review of entries in the Register of Rowdies suo motu, as provided under Clause (2), Order 1057 of the Manual. However, it is open to the aggrieved, to make a representation at any time after one year of registration, seeking deletion of name from the Rowdy Register on the basis of changed circumstances such as rectitude, good conduct, social/community service, etc. v. The representation for review shall be considered by jurisdictional Police at the initial level within a period of 30 days, during which necessary inputs may be obtained through the available sources as to merits of the claim. The recommendation shall be sent to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police or the Sub – Divisional Police Officer, within 15 days along with the representation & the material the result of collected consideration of the representation shall be communicated to the individual concerned within next 15 days. thereon. Such recommendation along with vi. Any individual aggrieved by the rejection of his representation or continuation of his name in the Register may petition to the Police Complaints Authority ordinarily within 30 days. However, no personal hearing shall avail. The petition shall be disposed off by recording reasons within an outer limit of 60 days, after considering the material on record or the fresh inputs that may be requisitioned, by the authority. vii. The entire process of Rowdy/History Sheeting from the stage of issuance of proposal notice as specified above, up to the issuance of the orders on the petition if any to the Police Complaints Authority, shall be done only in a sealed cover procedure and that nothing therein shall be disclosed nor made available to anyone, except to the aggrieved, nor any Right To Information (RTI) application shall be entertained in this regard. viii. The violation of these guidelines shall constitute a major misconduct and an adverse entry on proof thereof shall be made by the Disciplinary Authority in the Service Register of the erring official after hearing him and a copy thereof shall be marked to the victim of Rowdy Register/History Sheet, without brooking any delay. ix. Whatever guidelines herein above laid down shall be applicable to the case of History Sheeters as well, mutatis mutandis and subject to the provisions of Karnataka Police Manual, 1965.” In that light, the writ petition deserves to succeed, with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner, strictly in consonance with - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15254 WP No. 101343 of 2025 HC-KAR the observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench in the afore quoted judgment.

#8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: i. The petition stands disposed. ORDER ii. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a representation before Respondent No.2 seeking removal of his name from the list of rowdies maintained before the third and fourth respondents police stations within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. iii. In the event, the representation is submitted to the second respondent, the second respondent shall consider the same bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order and pass necessary orders thereon, within eight weeks thereafter. Till the compliance with the aforesaid order, the petitioner without any rhyme or reason shall not be arrested. As a consequence, I.A.1/2025 stands disposed of. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CT-ASC