"...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..."
NTR,J
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.
NTR,J
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
NTR,J
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
NTR,J
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
NTR,J
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.
NTR,J
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
