[ 3457 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 2288 OF 2025 Between: 1. Menta Vamsi Krishna, son of late Sathyanarayana, aged about 25 years. Occupation:present Nil, D.No.5-1-156, Sri Rangarajapuram, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. 2. Silavanatha Prasanth, son of Mallikarujuna, aged about 32 years. Occupation:present Nil, D.No.5-1-39, CRP Donka, Stone House Peta, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. 3. Thata Sukumar @ Sukku, son of Srinivasulu aged about 28 years. Occupation;present Nil, Door No. 15-7-206, CRP Donka, Stone House Peta, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. 4. Budali Murali, son Narayana, aged about 27 years, Occupation;present Nil Door No.5/544/2, CRP Donka, Stone House Peta, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. 5. Maddineni Vamsikrishna @ Alex, son of Venkateswarlu, aged about 28 years, Occupation;presently Nil, CRP Donka, Stone House Peta, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. 6. Syed Jannath Hussain, son of Syed House Mohiddin, aged about 31 years. Occupation:Present Nil, Door No.26-182, Thyagaraja Nagar, Andrakesari Nagar, Vedayapalem, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, AP. 2. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Town, Sub-Division, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. 3. The Inspector of Police, Nawabpet Police Station, Nellore Town, SPSR Nellore District. ...Respondents vRetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2 respondents herein in opening of respective Rowdy sheets against the petitioners viz., (1).Menta Vamsi Krishna (Rowdy Sheet No. 199), (2).Silavanatha Prasanth (Rowdy Sheet No.200), (3).Thota Sukumar (Rowdy Sheet No.201), (4).Budali Murali (Rowdy Sheet No.202), (5).Maddineni Vamsikrishna (Rowdy Sheet No.203) & (6).Syed Jannath nd rd and 3 Hussain (Rowdy Sheet No.394) without any notice to the petitioners and opened the respective rowdy sheets by the 2 recommendations of the 3'"^ respondent nd respondent on the on the sole ground of pendency of SC.No.49 of 2022 on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nelloore is bad, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary Police Standing Orders and the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court by infringing the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the said the respective Rowdy Sheets opened against the petitioners herein. to the lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to keep the respective rowdysheets against the petitioners herein viz. (l).Menta Vamsi Krishna (Rowdy Sheet No. 199), (2).Silavanatha Prasanth (Rowdy Sheet No.200), (3).Thota Sukumar (Rowdy Sheet No.201), (4).Budali Murali (Rowdy Sheet No.202), (5).Maddineni Vamsikrishna (Rowdy Sheet No.203) & (6).Syed Jannath Hussain (Rowdy Sheet No.394), in abeyance during the pending disposal of the above said writ petition; Counsel for the Petitioners.SRI. V SURENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: * APHC010045132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 2288/2025 Between; Menta Vamsi Krishna and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.VSURENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following Order: The petitioners are challenging the rowdy sheets opened against the petitioners and continuation of rowdy sheets against the petitioners on the sole ground that S.C.49 of 2022 is pending against the petitioners. A direction to declare the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in opening respective rowdy sheets against the petitioners viz., (1)Menta Vamsi Krishna (Rowdy Sheet No.199), (2)Silavanatha Rrasanth (Rowdy Sheet No.200), (3)Thota Sukumar (Rowdy Sheet No.201), (4)Budali Murali (Rowdy Sheet No.202), (5)Maddineni Vamsi Krishna (Rowdy Sheet No.203) and (6)Syed Jannath Hussain (Rowdy Sheet No.394). 2. It is submitted that pendency of rowdy sheet against the petitioners is violation of the basic human rights and that the continuance of the rowdy sheet against the petitioners is contrary to the Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. 3. The State has filed a counter. It is submitted in the counter that in order to curb the unlawful activities of the petitioners in the vicinity of Nawabpet Police Station, Nellore, rowdy sheets were opened against the petitioners and the Station House Officer, Nawabpet Police Station, opened the rowdy sheets against the petitioners 1 to 5. The rowdy sheet against the 6“^ petitioner was transferred to Vedayapalem Police Station. It is also submitted that the maintenance of rowdy sheets against the petitioners is essential as their activities would certainly come within the A.P.P.M. Order No.600 and a Standing Order No.602(2) would not preclude the S.P./B.C.P./C.P., to continue the history sheet if in the opinion of the concerned officer would be essential for maintaining peace and tranquility in the area. It is'submitted that rowdy sheets against the petitioners are revised from time to time and unless and until, there is no change in attitude of the petitioners, the rowdy sheets against them would have to be continued. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant 4. Government Pleader for Home, for the respondents. 5. Perused the record. The necessity of maintaining the orwdy sheet against the petitioners is adequately dealt by the respondents and it is the 2'^^ respondent, who has to be convinced of the requirement or otherwise of continuance of 6 rowdy sheet/history sheet against the petitioners. The only ground raised by the petitioners for seeking to quash the rowdy sheets is that only one case is pending against them. That may not suffice for this Court to give a direction as prayed for. It is absolutely the discretionary power of the 2"'' respondent to continue the rowdy sheet or dose the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. Maintenance of law and order is a responsibility of the State through its officers such as 2"^ and 3'"' respondents. At the ground level, it is for these respondents to consider the activities of the petitioners, movements of the petitioners and other circumstances, which necessitate the continuance of the rowdy sheets against the petitioners. In such cases, this Court cannot excel its writ jurisdiction, more so when the respondents have justified the continuance of rowdy sheets against the petitioners. 7. 8. On these grounds, this Court is not inclined to interfere in this matter and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 9. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closer! Sd/- G. HELA N/MDU assistant registrar ' section officer //TRUE COPY// To, 1 OneCCto SRI. V SURENDRA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCS to GP FOR HOME .High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [O 3. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:30/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.2288 of 2025 I <1 JUL 2025 IS ^^^s^jifrent SectiojtX^y ■'•'Saasiiiass-/ Co DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION