1. The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, more particularly, respondent No.5 herein, in issuing the proceedings in C.No.272/ACP/KMM/T/2020, dated 08.10.2020 opening rowdy sheet against him as illegal and unconstitutional, and for a consequential direction to the respondents to remove the photograph of the petitioner from the list of ‘Rowdy Sheeters Board’ in II-Town Police Station, Khammam.

2. Heard Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Rama Mohan Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home & Law appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. The contentions of the petitioner are as under:

(i) The petitioner and his family have been in Granite business for several years.

(ii) He being the member of YSR Congress Party had participated in various political activities of YSR Congress Party and continues to do so.

(iii) On account of his political background, several political opponents developed enmity towards him and started filing false complaints against him.

(iv) Upon the political pressure, respondent police have registered certain criminal cases against the petitioner.

(v) When the respondent police had opened rowdy sheet against the petitioner to prevent him from acting as an Election Agency, he filed W.P. No.27718 of 2009, wherein this Court by order dated 27.01.2010, quashed the said rowdy sheet.

(vi) The petitioner had filed W.P. No.18868 of 2020 challenging the proceedings dated 08.08.2019 disqualifying him from participating in any election to be held under the GHMC Act, 1955 for a period of three years on the ground that he did not file election expenditure, and this Court vide order dated 16.11.2020 set aside the said proceedings.

(vii) The respondent police had registered various crimes against the petitioner under various offences so as to prevent him from contesting elections, the details of which are shown in the following tabular form.

(viii) Out of the aforesaid five (05) Crimes; C.C. No.311 of 2013 was ended in acquittal, though Crime Nos.153 of 2016, 154 of 2017, 389 of 2017 and 321 of 2018 are pending, offences therein are minor in nature and the same were filed at the instance of political opponents.

(ix) In view of the above, opening / continuing of rowdy sheet against the petitioner is illegal.

(x) A person should be a habitual offender for the purpose of opening and maintaining of rowdy sheet, and the petitioner is not habitual offender.

(xi) Placed reliance on the principle laid down by a Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP).

With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to declare the action of the respondents, more particularly, respondent No.5 in issuing proceedings C.No.272/ACP/KMM/T/2020, dated 08.10.2020 opening rowdy sheet against the petitioner as illegal and for a consequential direction to close the above said rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner.

4. The contentions of respondents, as per the contents of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5 are as under:

(i) The petitioner herein was involved in four crimes, viz., Cr.No.125 of 2013, Cr.No.153 of 2016, Cr.No.154 of 2016 and Cr.No.389 of 2017. Out of the said four crimes, Crime No.125 of 2013 was ended in compromise, and the remaining three cases are pending trial against the petitioner.

(ii) Apart from the above three crimes, the petitioner herein was also involved in other crimes, which are as under:

(iii) As the petitioner is creating panic situation at Khila Bazar and NSP Colony, Khammam, and its surroundings it was required to control his activities. Accordingly, respondent No.6 requested respondent No.3 to accord permission to open rowdy sheet against the petitioner to keep vigil on his activities.

(iv) As per the instructions of respondent No.3, respondent No.6 has accorded permission vide C.No.272/ACP-KMM-T/2020, dated 08.10.2020 as he would come under the purview of Order No.601 of APPM/TSPM Part.II and it is a fit case to open rowdy sheet against the petitioner.

(v) Accordingly, rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner on 10.10.2020 by invoking the power under Police Standing Order (PSO) No.601.

(vi) The case of the petitioner herein falls under Clause - A of PSO No.601. In support of the same, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has relied on the decision in Mohd. Sadiq Shareef v. State of Telangana 2019 (1) ALT 283 . [LQ/TelHC/2018/708] He has also relied upon the decisions in Dhanji Ram Sharma v. Superintendent of Police, North District, Delhi Police AIR 1966 SC 1766 [LQ/SC/1966/91] and Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1984 SC 1334 [LQ/SC/1984/106] .

With the said submissions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader sought to dismiss the present writ petition.

5. In view of the said rival submissions, it is opt to refer to the relevant clauses of the A.P. Police Manual. Maintenance of Rowdy Sheets is governed by Police Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual, Part-I, Volume II, which reads as under:-.

“601. The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 80) may be opened for them under the orders of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO.

A. Persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbance to public order and security.

B. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(1) (i) and 110(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C.

C. Persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under sections 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad City Police Act or under section 3, clause 12, of the AP Towns Nuisances Act.

D. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks.

E. Persons who intimidate by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means to part with movable or immovable properties or in the habit of collecting money by extortion from shopkeepers, traders and other residents.

F. Persons who incite and instigate communal/caste or political riots.

G. Persons detained under the “AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986” for a period of 6 months or more.

H. Persons who are convicted for offences under the Representatives of the Peoples’ Act for rigging and carrying away ballot paper, Boxes and other polling material.”

6. Likewise, the period of retention of history sheets of suspects / rowdies is governed by Standing Order 602, which reads as follows:-

“602-1. History Sheets of suspects shall be maintained from the date of registration up to the end of December, after which the orders of a gazetted officer as to their discontinuance or retention for a further period shall be obtained.

2. Merely because a suspect/rowdy, having a history sheet, is not figuring as accused in the previous 5 years after the last case in which he was involved, it should not preclude the SP/DCP/CP to continue his history sheet if SP/DCP/CP is of the considered view that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or one affecting peace and tranquillity in the area or the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him.”

7. Standing Order 742 of A.P. Police Standing Orders deals with situation as to classification of rowdies and opening of rowdy sheets, which is extracted below:-

“742. Rowdies:- (1) The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 88) may be opened for them under the order of the Superintendent of Police or Sub-divisional Officer:

a) persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offences involving a breach of the peace;

b) persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(c) and 110(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No.2 of 1974);

c) persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act or under Section 3, clause 12, of the Towns Nuisances Act;

d) persons who habitually tease women and girls by passing indecent remarks or otherwise; and

e) in the case of rowdies residing in an area under one Police Station but are found to be frequently visiting the area under one or more other Police Stations their rowdy sheets can be maintained at all such Police Stations;

(G.O. Ms. No. 656, Home (Police-D) Dept. Dt. 8-4-1971)

(2) Instructions in Order 735 regarding discontinuance of History Sheets shall also apply to Rowdy Sheets.”

8. According to the respondents, the petitioner was involved in various crimes, and the details of which are shown in the aforesaid tabular forms, and are continuously indulging in the commission of lawless acts involving breach of public peace and tranquility.

9. As per Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual, rowdy sheet can be maintained against persons who habitually commit or attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security.

10. Refuting the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that out of five crimes, Crime No.125 of 2013 was ended in acquittal, while Crime No.321 of 2018 was ended in compromise, and only three crimes are pending and the offences therein are minor in nature. Even then, as per the Police Manual, if a single crime is pending, opening of a rowdy sheet against any person is illegal.

11. The Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the opening of history sheets, continuation of the same and also right to privacy in Kharak Singh v. The State of U. P. AIR 1963 SC 1295 [LQ/SC/1962/444] . In the said case, rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner therein and the same was continued. Under the guise of surveillance, the police started visiting the house of the petitioner therein against whom the rowdy sheet was opened and pending during night hours and they used to torture the petitioner. The Apex Court declared that the domiciliary visits at night hours are unconstitutional.

12. In Vijay Narain Singh AIR 1984 SC 1334 [LQ/SC/1984/106] , a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the expression ‘habitually’ and held that the expression ‘habitually’ would mean ‘repeatedly’ or ‘persistently’ implying a thread of continuity, stringing together similar repetitive acts, and a single act or omission would not characterize as an act of ‘habitual’. The Apex Court was of the opinion that to qualify as a ‘habit’, a person must have grown accustomed to leading a life of crime, whereby it would be a force of habit, inherent or latent, in an individual with a criminal instinct, with a criminal disposition of mind, that makes him as dangerous to society in general.

13. In Dhanji Ram Sharma AIR 1966 SC 1766 [LQ/SC/1966/91] , a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the condition precedent for opening of a history sheet is that such person should be reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to a crime or to be an aider or abettor of crime. In order to justify the opening of a history sheet, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the police officer must have a reasonable belief based on reasonable grounds.

14. In Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP) a learned Single Judge was concerned with the maintenance of history sheets/rowdy sheets for considerably long periods of time and held that the same would not only violate the right of privacy but also other fundamental rights of such persons under Articles - 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Orders for opening or retention of history sheets/rowdy sheets should be passed under administrative instructions and guidelines and if such orders are challenged, the competent authority has to place the reasons before the Court justifying the opening/retention of such history sheets/rowdy sheets. It would be better for the police officer concerned to record his own reasons for opening/retention of history sheets/rowdy sheets.

15. In B. Satyanarayana Reddy 2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP), a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held, that the expressions ‘habitually commit’, ‘attempt to commit’ and ‘abet the commission’ of offences indicate the requirement that at least ‘two or more cases’ have been registered against the person characterized him as a person who habitually commits, attempts to or abets the commission of offences. It was further held that the involvement of a person in a solitary case would not be enough to classify such person as ‘habitually’ committing offences. With the said finding, the Division Bench held that solitary instance in which the appellant therein was alleged to be involved in could not constitute the basis to classify him as a ‘Rowdy.’

16. In Majid Babu v. Government of A.P. 1987(2) ALT 904 , it was held that two instances of involvement in criminal cases would not make a person a ‘habitual offender’ and that at least more than two instances should be present before a person can be described as a habitual offender.

17. In Kamma Bapuji 1997 (6) ALD 583 v. Station House Officer, Brahmasamudram 1997 (6) ALD 583 [LQ/TelHC/1997/1084] , wherein the persons in whose name rowdy sheets were opened were involved in two cases, but they were acquitted in both, it was sought to be contended on behalf of the police authorities that the rowdy sheets were opened during the pendency of the cases and that the acquittal therein would be of no consequence thereafter. While dealing with the said facts of the said case, the learned Judge rejected the said contention and held that rowdy sheets could not be opened in a casual and mechanical manner and a person could not be dubbed a ‘habitual offender’ merely because he was involved in two criminal cases.

18. In Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada 1998(3) ALT 55 (DB) , a Division Bench confirmed, the said principle holding that a rowdy sheet could not be opened against an individual in a casual and mechanical manner, due care and caution should be taken by the police before characterizing a person as a rowdy. The Division Bench expressed agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Kamma Bapuji 1997 (6) ALD 583 [LQ/TelHC/1997/1084] that figuring as an accused in two crimes would not be sufficient to categorize a person as a ‘habitual offender’.

19. In Mohammed Quadeer v. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad 1999(3) ALD 60 it was held that the A.P. Police Standing Orders were not statutory in nature and were only a compilation of government orders issued from time to time, and that the Manual did not invest the police officers with any powers of arrest, detention, investigation of crimes etc., not specifically conferred under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or other enactments. As regards retention of a rowdy sheet, it was held that opening of a rowdy sheet against a citizen was undoubtedly fraught with serious consequences and the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution could not be deprived except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The law which authorizes the police to open Rowdy Sheets and exercise surveillance would have to be very strictly construed.

20. In Yerramsetti Venugopal Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2020 (2) ALD (Crl.) 1048 (AP), a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, referring to the above said provisions of the A.P. Police Manual and the principles laid down in the above said judgments held that the history sheet of a rowdy can be continued (i) if his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquility in the area; and (ii) the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him.

21. In Sadath Ali v. The Commissioner of Police, Twin Cities, Hyderabad W.P. No.19194 of 2012, decided on 24.08.2015 by referring to the above said provisions of the A.P. Police Manual and also the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, a learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, held that the requirement of involvement in at least more than two cases for inferring that he was a habitual offender was not established. The opening of the rowdy sheet in the name of the petitioner therein was therefore tainted in law in its very inception. Therefore, continuation of the said rowdy sheet by the police authorities ignoring the law laid down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court cannot be sustained. Accordingly, with the said finding, the respondents therein were directed to close the rowdy sheet being maintained in the name of the petitioner therein.

22. In M. Laxman v. State of Telangana W.P. No.18364 of 2020, decided on 03.12.2020, a learned Judge of this Court, after referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Vijay Narain Singh AIR 1984 SC 1334 [LQ/SC/1984/106] and also referring to the Police Standing Orders supra, it was held that it is permissible to the police to open a rowdy sheet if police are of the view that, the petitioner is habitually committing offences/abetting commission of offence involving breach of peace, disturbance to the public order and security. In the said case, the petitioner was involved in five cases and he has been facing trial in the said cases. Referring to the said facts, it was held that, it cannot be said that the action of the police in opening rowdy sheet amounts to abuse or misuse of power and authority, and cannot be said that one made in illegal exercise of power and without application of mind.

23. In Kadri Ranadheer Kumar v. Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad W.P. No.12845 of 2014, decided on 27.09.2019, wherein the petitioner was involved in only one case for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and by relying on the principles laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in catenae of decisions, a learned Judge of this Court held that the opening of rowdy sheet and continuation of the same thereafter was in violation of the life and liberty as guaranteed to the petitioner therein under the provisions of the Constitution of India as well as contrary to the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court.

24. Following the above said principle, this Court also ordered for the closure of rowdy sheet in Mansoor Shah Khan v. The State of Telangana rep.by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Hyderabad W.P. No.22980 of 2020, decided on 01.06.2021

25. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Madras High Court in G. Raman Alias Ramachandran v. The Superintendent of Police, Karur District 2013 Crl.L.J. 2746. In the said case, it was held that in the public interest, the Police have got a right to disseminate information, concerning law and order, and the crime. Display or publication of a photograph of a History Sheeted Rowdy may be continued to infringe upon a person's right, in so far as it affects his identity, reputation in the minds of others, but at the same time, public interest would prevail over private interest. Referring to the same, the learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the respondents have rightly opened the rowdy sheet against the petitioner and is continuing the same in the interest of public. According to him, there is no illegality..

26. In view of the law, laid down by this Court and the Apex Court in the above said judgments, coming to the facts of the case on hand, as discussed supra, as on the date of opening of rowdy sheet, the petitioner herein is involved in four (04) crimes and out of which he was acquitted in one crime i.e., Crime No.125 of 2013. Allegations in Crime Nos.153 of 2016 and 154 of 2016 are that he has distributed money during election time. In Crime No.389 of 2017, the offences alleged against the petitioner herein are under Sections - 420 and 156 of IPC. The said crimes and allegations levelled against the petitioner herein do not qualify to open and maintain a rowdy sheet against the petitioner herein as held in Yerramsetti Venugopal Rao11

27. As stated above, as per Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual, for opening and maintenance of rowdy sheet, a person against whom the same was issued should habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security. Further, as held by the Apex Court in Vijay Narain Singh AIR 1984 SC 1334 [LQ/SC/1984/106] , the expression ‘habitually’ would mean ‘repeatedly’ or ‘persistently’ implying a thread of continuity, stringing together similar repetitive acts, and a single act or omission would not characterize as a ‘habitual’. The Apex Court was of the opinion that to qualify as a ‘habit’, a person must have grown accustomed to leading a life of crime, whereby it would be a force of habit, inherent or latent, in an individual with a criminal instinct, with a criminal disposition of mind, that makes him dangerous to society in general. In Majid Babu AIR 1984 SC 1334 [LQ/SC/1984/106] by referring to Standing Order No.742, it was held that two instances of involvement in criminal cases would not make a person a ‘habitual offender’ and that at least there should be more than two instances present before a person and can be described as a habitual offender. Rowdy sheet could not be opened against an individual in a casual and mechanical manner and due care and caution should be taken by the police before characterizing a person as a rowdy. Figuring as an accused in two cases would not be sufficient to characterize a person as a habitual offender 2020 (2) ALD (Crl.) 1048 (AP).

28. As held in Yerramsetti Venugopal Rao 2020 (2) ALD (Crl.) 1048 (AP), rowdy sheet can be continued (i) if his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquility in the area; and (ii) the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him. The said grounds are lacking in the present case. Therefore, continuation of the said ‘rowdy sheet’ by the police authorities against the petitioners ignoring the law laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court in the judgments cited supra cannot be sustained.

29. For the foregoing discussion, the present Writ Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in C.No.272/ACP/KMM/T/2020, dated 08.10.2020 opening rowdy sheet against the petitioner herein are hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to remove the photo of the petitioner from the list of the rowdy sheet.

30. However, in the counter, it is stated that the petitioner has involved in 8 more cases wherein the offences alleged against the petitioner herein includes the offences under Sections - 324 and 307 of IPC. But, there is no mention with regard to the nature of allegations and stage of investigation etc. In view of the same, liberty is granted to the respondents’ police to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law.

31. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

32. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.