[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Mohammed Shamsuddin Khan , Meraj Khan vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 9 April, 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.17666 OF 2019
DATE: 09.04.2026
Between :
Mohammed Shamsuddin Khan @ Meraj Khan
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana rep., by its Principal Secretary to Home
Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and four 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 Writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 5
in not removing the rowdy sheet against the
petitioner pending before the 5th respondent police
station inspite of the petitioner written
representation dated 08.11.2017 which was
acknowledged by the 1st respondent on
09.11.2017 and also interference by the
respondent Nos.2 to 5 day today business of the
petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and also
against Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution
of India and also against the provisions of
Cr.P.C..........."
2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
3.1. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted
that, based on a representation made by one Devinder Prakash dated
24.10.2014, the petitioner, along with another individual, allegedly
trespassed into the petition mentioned property, abused the
complainant in filthy language, and asserted unlawful claims over the
property by demanding allotment of 1000 square yards of open land.
Pursuant thereto, a case in Crime No. 145 of 2014 was registered
under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Andhra Pradesh
Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.
3.2. It was further contended that, having regard to the petitioner's
alleged activities and their impact on public peace and order, a rowdy
sheet was opened against him. The said rowdy sheet has been
continued through periodic renewals, by the competent authority in
accordance with the applicable Police Standing Orders. It was
therefore argued that the action of the respondent police authorities is
in consonance with the (Andhra Pradesh) Telangana Police Standing
Orders and the prescribed procedure, and hence the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.
4. I have carefully perused the material available on record.
5. The principal contention advanced by the petitioner is that the
initiation and continued maintenance of the rowdy sheet lacks any
lawful basis and unjustifiably infringes upon his fundamental rights. It is
the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has been involved in 27
criminal cases between the years 2007 and 2025. However, the record
reveals that 18 of these cases have resulted in acquittal or settlement,
while 7 cases relate to "bind over" proceedings between 2009 and
2020. As on date, only two cases, pertaining to the years 2017 and
2025 are stated to be pending.
6. It is further evident that the renewal of the rowdy sheet has been
undertaken annually, wherein the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
relying upon the proposal of the Inspector of Police, has permitted its
continuation on the premise that the petitioner is an "active offender
warranting surveillance".
7. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to Standing Order No. 601
of the (A.P.) Telangana Police Manual, which governs the opening and
continuation of rowdy sheets. The said Standing Order mandates that
such measures must be predicated upon clearly established criteria,
particularly that the activities of the individual concerned are likely to
cause or abet disturbance to public peace and tranquility. It further
emphasizes that periodic review by a competent authority is
mandatory, given that surveillance through rowdy sheets directly
impinges upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution.
8. Judicial pronouncements have consistently held that the
opening and continuation of rowdy sheets must not be mechanical or
routine, but must be supported by objective consideration coupled with
subjective satisfaction based on relevant material. The competent
authority is required to apply its independent mind and record reasons
demonstrating that continued surveillance is necessary in the interest
of public order. Mere registration of criminal cases, particularly where
majority have ended in acquittal or closure, cannot by itself justify the
continuation of a rowdy sheet.
9. In the present case, there is a conspicuous absence of material
placed by the proposing authority to substantiate the necessity for
continued surveillance. The orders of renewal passed by the Assistant
Commissioner of Police reflect a mechanical exercise of power, lacking
any independent evaluation of the petitioner's current conduct or its
impact on public peace. Moreover, the periodic review conducted on an
annual basis is contrary to the spirit and stipulations of the relevant
Standing Orders, which require more rigorous and timely scrutiny. The
failure to adhere to the prescribed procedural safeguards vitiates the
continuation of the rowdy sheet.
10. In view of the above factual and legal position, and in the
absence of cogent material justifying the necessity for continued
surveillance, the action of the respondent authorities in maintaining the
rowdy sheet against the petitioner falls short of the legal requirements.
Such action is arbitrary and violative of the petitioner's fundamental
rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, which
guarantee equality before law, freedom of movement, and protection of
life and personal liberty, respectively.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The rowdy sheet
opened and maintained against the petitioner is hereby quashed. The
respondent police authorities are directed to forthwith take all
consequential steps to remove the petitioner's name from the relevant
registers. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 09.04.2026
MRKR
