Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 15-09-2026 Date of uploading : 16-09-2026 APHC010513922023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3604] TUESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM WRIT PETITION NO: 26648/2023 Between: 1. GAMALA KONDALA RAO, S/O LATE RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.36-94-306, RAMJEE ESTATE KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM 530008 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, WEST SUB- DIVISION VISAKHAPATNAM CITY POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANCHARAPALEM P.S. VISAKHAPATNAM CITY POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings in 2 SUN, J WP_26648_2023 C.No.01/History Sheets/ACP-W/2023 dated 03.01.2023 issued by the 3rd Respondent whereby and whereunder, a Rowdy Sheet is being opened against the Petitioner and being maintained by the 4th Respondent Police Station as illegal, arbitrary, void, violative of principles of natural justice, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violation of A.P. Police Standing Order No.601 and consequently direct the Respondents to remove the Photographs of the Petitioner from the Notice Board in the 4th Respondent Police Station by setting aside the proceedings in C.No.01/History Sheets/ACP-W/2023 dated 03.01.2023 issued by the 3rd Respondent and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 direct the Respondents not to call the Petitioner to the 4th Respondent Police Station without any justifiable reason as also to remove the Photographs of the Petitioner from the Notice Board showing as Depredator in the 4th Respondent Police Station by suspending the proceedings in C.No.01/History Sheets/ACP¬W/2023 dated 03.01.2023 issued by the 31c1 Respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 3 SUN, J WP_26648_2023 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM WRIT PETITION No.26648 OF 2023 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to remove the photographs of the petitioner from the notice board of respondent No.4 Police Station and to set aside the proceedings in C.No.01/History Sheets/ACP-W/2023, dated 03.01.2023, issued by respondent No.3. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner has been running a fair price shop at A.S.R. Nagar, Burma Camp, by distributing essential commodities to the cardholders every succeeding month from the 1st to the 15th, between 8.00 A.M. and 12.00 P.M. and again from 4.00 P.M. to 8.00 P.M. On 04.10.2020, at 7.55 P.M., he received a phone call from respondent No.5 Police Station and, again, on 05.10.2020, at 11.21 A.M. He was engaged in distributing essential commodities to the cardholders. Respondent No.5 Police insisted him to come to the Police Station. As he did not go to the Police Station, four police constables came to the fair price shop in civil dress, abused him and took him away from the shop. Again on 06.10.2020, the Sub-Inspector of Police called him to the Police Station and threatened to register a case against him. The police continued their high-handed behaviour by repeatedly calling him. Having no other alternative, his wife submitted a report to respondent No.4 Police Station, marking copies to the higher officials. Thereafter, respondent 4 SUN, J WP_26648_2023 No.4 registered a false case in Crime No.524 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376, 506, 509 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Again, respondent No.4 Police registered another case in Crime No.222 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 332 IPC. Both the cases were registered only to wreak vengeance against the petitioner. Except for those cases, the petitioner has neither been involved in nor convicted of any other case. 3. On 22.01.2023, respondent No.4 Police directed the petitioner to come to the Police Station along with his full address particulars, photographs and other details. Though he requested the police to furnish information regarding the reason for calling him, respondent No.4 did not provide any information. He sought information under the Right to Information Act on 23.01.2023. Respondent No.4 sent proposals for opening a rowdy sheet against the petitioner and, accordingly, the superior officials issued proceedings to open a rowdy sheet against him under Order No.601 (Part-I, Vol-II B) of the A.P. Police Manual and directed him to come to the Police Station. However, they did not furnish a copy of the proceedings to him and obtained his signatures. Till recently, he was not supplied with a copy of the proceedings. From the information furnished by respondent No.4 Police, it appears that the rowdy sheet was opened on two grounds, namely, registration and pendency of two crimes and the instructions of the higher authorities. The respondent police have not followed the Standing Orders of the A.P. Police Manual, particularly 5 SUN, J WP_26648_2023 Order No.601, while opening the rowdy sheet. Opening a rowdy sheet without any basis amounts to curtailing and violating the rights of the petitioner. 4. Respondent No.4 filed a counter-affidavit refuting the averments made by the petitioner and, inter alia, contended that the petitioner is habituated to committing offences against women and police officials and that, accordingly, two crimes were registered against him. It was further contended that the petitioner had not cooperated with the Investigating Officer, accused No.2 in Crime No.524 of 2020 also faced difficulty in being arrested, and the petitioner did not cooperate with the police and used criminal force against police personnel and accordingly, Crime No.222 of 2021 was registered. It was further stated that the photograph of the petitioner was never displayed on the notice board. The police claimed to have followed the Standing Orders of the A.P. Police Manual and, in accordance with the said Standing Orders, classified the petitioner as a rowdy sheeter. With these and other formal denials, respondent No.4 prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would initially contend that, without following the Standing Orders, particularly Order No.601 of the A.P. Police Manual, respondent No.4 Police recommended opening a rowdy sheet against the writ petitioner and respondent No.3 issued proceedings by deviating from the existing Standing Orders. Learned counsel would further 6 SUN, J WP_26648_2023 contend that the writ petitioner is not a habitual offender, has neither been convicted nor involved in any other offence except the cases referred to, and that, without following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, a rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner with the intention of curtailing his rights. 7. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that respondent No.4 never displayed the photograph of the petitioner on the notice board; that the petitioner is involved in two crimes; and that, as per the instructions of the superior officials, a rowdy sheet was opened against him, there are no merits in the contentions of the petitioner. 8. The record clearly reveals that, based on the report of the de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.524 of 2020 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376, 506, 509 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. During the investigation in that case, another case in Crime No.222 of 2021 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 332 IPC, alleging that the petitioner manhandled the police officials while they were discharging their duties. 9. In B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, it was held that, under Police Standing Order No.742, in order to include the name of a person in a rowdy sheet, it has to be established that such person habitually commits or abets the commission of offences involving breach of peace. A 1 2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 387 7 SUN, J WP_26648_2023 solitary case resulting in a breach of peace is not sufficient to include his name in a rowdy sheet. 10. In Majid Babu v. Government of A.P 2, a Division Bench, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Vide Malak Singh v. State of Punjab3 held as follows: “When the Police open Rowdy Sheets against persons involving any offences pertaining to breach of peace, they need not communicate the reasons nor are the persons concerned entitled to be heard before the rowdy sheets are opened. Nonetheless, when a complaint is made to the Court that, contrary to the provisions of the Police Standing Order, Rowdy Sheets are opened, the respondents are under a duty to satisfy the Court that the action taken by them accords with the provisions of the Police Standing Orders or any other valid provision of law.” It was further observed that two instances would not make a person a habitual offender. At least more than two instances should be present before a person can be described as a habitual offender. Merely because two persons figure as accused in respect of two crimes registered by the Police, no inference can be drawn that they are habitual offenders. 11. In Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada 4, a Division Bench of this Court held that opening rowdy sheets in a routine manner against persons who are not habitual offenders is not permissible and further observed as follows: “...it is clear that rowdy sheets cannot be opened against any individual in a casual and mechanical manner. Dubbing a person as a habitual offender and opening a rowdy sheet is not sufficient. On the other hand, due care and caution shall be taken by the Police before characterising a person as a rowdy. The important element that has to be seen in the acts of an 2 1987 (2) ALT 904 3 (1981) 1 SCC 420 4 (1998) 3 ALT 55 8 SUN, J WP_26648_2023 offender is whether the acts so committed by a person will have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquillity.” 12. It is not in dispute that, except in these two cases, the petitioner is neither an accused nor has he been convicted in any other case. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the photograph of the petitioner has not been displayed on the notice board. It is needless to say that, before opening a rowdy sheet, the respondent police must follow the instructions contained in Standing Order No.601 of the A.P. Police Manual. It is appropriate to refer to the said Standing Order: “Rowdies – 601: The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets may be opened for them under the orders of 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 A.P. Towns Nuisances Act. (D) Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks. (E) Rowdy Sheets for rowdies residing in one Police Station area but found frequently in other Police Station areas can be maintained at all such Police Stations. (F) Persons who intimidate by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means to part with movable or immovable properties, or who are in the habit of collecting money by extortion from shopkeepers, traders and other residents. (G) Persons who incite and instigate communal, caste or political riots. (H) Persons detained under the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1966, for a period of six months or more. (I) Persons who are convicted for offences under the Representation of the People Act for rigging and carrying away ballot papers, boxes and other polling material.” 13. Even on a reading of the aforementioned Standing Order, it is clear that persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbance of public order and security; habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks; are 9 SUN, J WP_26648_2023 involved in communal offences; are involved in election-related offences; are detained under the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1966; or are involved in offences under the Representation of the People Act relating to rigging and carrying away ballot papers, boxes and other polling material, etc., alone are liable to be categorised as rowdies. The explanation offered by the petitioner for registration of the initial case in Crime No.524 of 2020 is that, from 04.10.2020 to 08.10.2020, respondent No.4 Police harassed him by calling him to the Police Station to secure his presence in a high-handed manner, abused him and thereafter his wife submitted a complaint to respondent No.4 and his superior authorities. In the present petition, the reasons for initiation of the said crime, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376, 506, 509 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC, cannot be taken into consideration to decide this petition. So, without touching the merits of the said case and having regard to the existing rules and Standing Orders, this writ petition has to be disposed of. 14. Admittedly, the second crime was registered during the investigation of the first case in Crime No.524 of 2020 for allegedly manhandling the police officials. The circumstances of the present case do not bring the petitioner within the categories contemplated under the Standing Orders of the A.P. Police Manual. Mere registration of a second crime is not sufficient to open a rowdy sheet. Further, the procedure contemplated under Standing Order 10 SUN, J WP_26648_2023 No.601 was not followed before opening the rowdy sheet. If a rowdy sheet could be opened merely against persons involved in a single offence against women and in an incident of alleged manhandling of police officials, there would be no need to prescribe the specific categories and safeguards contained in the Standing Orders. 15. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to close the rowdy/history sheet maintained in the name of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J 15.09.2026 knl