Telangana High Court
Mohammed Khaja vs The State Of Telangana on 31 March, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No. 19464 OF 2019
DATE: 31.03.2026
Between :
Mohammed Khaja and another.
... Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal
Secretary to Government, Home Department, T.S.
Secretariat, Hyderabad-22, and two others.
... Respondents.
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in harassing the petitioners in the guise of opening a Rowdy Sheet as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to harass the petitioners without any basis and pass such other order or orders..."2
NTR,J W.P. No. 19464 of 2019
2. I have heard Ms. K.V. Rajasree, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are father and son, are residents of Mothukuru Village, Doma Mandal, Vikarabad District. The first petitioner is an agriculturist and has previously served as the Vice-Chairman of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (PACS), actively participating in social and community affairs. It is averred that certain family disputes relating to agricultural land led to the lodging of criminal complaints by relatives, resulting in registration of FIR Nos. 48 and 81 of 2017. The petitioners were granted bail in those cases, and no further criminal cases have been registered against them since 2017. It is the specific grievance of the petitioners that Respondent No. 3, relying solely on the aforesaid past cases, opened rowdy sheets against them without any valid or substantive material. Pursuant thereto, police personnel have allegedly been making frequent visits to their residence, subjecting them to harassment, restricting their movements, and interfering with their agricultural and social activities. Aggrieved by such action, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition seeking quashment of the rowdy sheets.
3
NTR,J W.P. No. 19464 of 2019
4.(i). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondents in opening and continuing the rowdy sheets is arbitrary, illegal, and devoid of any reasonable basis. It is contended that the petitioners do not fall within any of the categories contemplated under Standing Order 601-A of the (Andhra Pradesh) Telangana Police Manual, which governs the circumstances under which rowdy sheets may be opened and maintained. In the absence of any recent criminal activity or credible material justifying such action, the continuation of the rowdy sheets is wholly unsustainable in law.
4.(ii). It is further contended that the continued surveillance and repeated interference by the police authorities amount to an unwarranted intrusion into the petitioners' personal liberty, dignity, and right to live with privacy, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as their freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d). Accordingly, a direction is sought for quashment of the said rowdy sheets.
5.(i). Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the action of the police authorities in opening and continuing the rowdy sheet is lawful and in accordance with the relevant Standing Orders governing such maintenance. It is submitted that the rowdy sheet opened against the first petitioner has already been closed vide proceedings 4 NTR,J W.P. No. 19464 of 2019 dated 05.03.2022, and therefore, no grievance survives insofar as he is concerned.
5.(ii). With regard to the second petitioner, it is contended that he has been involved in multiple criminal cases, and notwithstanding acquittals or compromises in some of them, his antecedents and conduct necessitate continued surveillance. It is further submitted that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Parigi, after due consideration, permitted the retention/renewal of the rowdy sheet against the second petitioner. It is also asserted that victims are reluctant to lodge complaints due to apprehension of threats from the second petitioner. Hence, in the interest of maintaining law and order, continued surveillance is justified. On these grounds, dismissal of the writ petition is sought.
6. I have carefully perused the material on record and considered the rival submissions advanced.
7. It is not in dispute that the rowdy sheet against the first petitioner has already been closed by proceedings dated 05.03.2022. Accordingly, no further adjudication is required insofar as the first petitioner is concerned.
8. With respect to the second petitioner, the respondents seek to justify the continuation of the rowdy sheet based on alleged post-criminal 5 NTR,J W.P. No. 19464 of 2019 antecedents and an order dated 01.01.2026 passed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Parigi. However, a perusal of the record reveals that the criminal cases relied upon pertain to the period between 2006 and 2017, and admittedly, no subsequent cases have been registered thereafter. Out of the six cases, one resulted in acquittal, while three ended in compromise.
9. In such circumstances, the mere existence of past criminal cases, particularly those culminating in acquittal or compromise, cannot, by itself, constitute sufficient material to justify the indefinite or mechanical continuation of a rowdy sheet. As per Standing Order 601 of the Police Manual, the opening and retention of a rowdy sheet must be based on credible, current, and proximate material indicating habitual criminality or activities prejudicial to public order.
10. The power to open or continue a rowdy sheet, being an encroachment upon personal liberty, must be exercised with due care, caution, and objective satisfaction, and is subject to periodic review. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malak Singh vs State of Punjab & Haryana, AIR 1981 SCC 760, held that although surveillance and maintenance of history sheets are permissible, such surveillance must not be excessive or intrusive so as to infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court cautioned that 6 NTR,J W.P. No. 19464 of 2019 surveillance which seriously encroaches upon privacy and liberty cannot be sustained. Similarly, this Court has consistently held that the continuation of a rowdy sheet in the absence of fresh material or recent criminal involvement is legally unsustainable.
11. In the present case, the reasons cited by the respondents, such as vague apprehensions of victims and generalized assertions regarding disturbance to public order are not supported by any tangible or cogent material. The renewal endorsement of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer merely reiterates the opinions of subordinate officers without independent application of mind or scrutiny of the underlying material. Such reasoning reflects a mechanical exercise of jurisdiction, lacking objective satisfaction as required under law.
12. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the rowdy sheet against the second petitioner fails to meet the requirements prescribed under the Standing Orders. In the absence of any recent criminal activity or credible supporting material, such continuation is arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7
NTR,J W.P. No. 19464 of 2019
13. Accordingly, the impugned action of the respondents in continuing the rowdy sheet against the second petitioner is declared unsustainable and is hereby set aside. The respondent police authorities are directed to remove the name of the second petitioner from the rowdy sheet register forthwith and are restrained from interfering with his life and liberty, except in accordance with due process of law.
14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 31.03.2026 svl