Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
P. Apparao vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By ... on 25 November, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1998(4)ALT398
Author: B. Sudershan Reddy
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy
ORDER B. Sudershan Reddy, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader for Home.
2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of he respondents in maintaining K.D. Sheet No. 247 against the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.
3. The petitioner, no doubt, was involved in some criminal cases during the year 1976,1979 and 1980. It is required to notice that the petitioner was convicted in CC. Nos. 1483/1976,1583/76 and 181/79 respectively and he was bound over by the Executive Mandal Magistrate, Tadepalligudem in M.C. No. 19/96 by an order Dt. 15-4-1996. Consequent upon the conviction, the History sheet was opened against the petitioner by the respondents in exercise of the power under Standing Order No. 734 of A.P. Police Standing Orders and the same is being continued for all these years. It is important to notice that there are no cases against the petitioner registered as such after 1980 except one proceeding Under Section 110 Cr.P.C. in Cr. No. 87/96 on the file of the Executive Mandal Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, It is rather difficult to appreciate as to why the History sheet opened against the petitioner is still being continued. It is not as if opening of the History sheet or K.D. sheet would not cause any harm or prejudice to the person concerned. With a view to monitor the movements of the persons against whom such History sheets are opened, the police keep watch of surveillance. In the instant case, it is complained that the petitioner is being repeatedly called to the Police Station without any reason or cause. It would certainly cause and interfere in the personal freedom of the petitioner.
4. Admittedly, the K.D. sheet is opened against the petitioner as early as in the year 1975 (sic. 1978) and there is nothing on record to suggest and satisfy the Court that the same was reviewed by the concerned authorities after two years of registration. Standing Order 735 requires that where the retention of a History Sheet is considered necessary after two years of registration, orders of a Gazetted Officer must be taken for the extension of the period in the first instance upto the end of the next December and for further annual extensions from January to December. Whether such a review is made by the competent authority concerned is not placed before the Court. The counter-affidavit does not even say that it is being reviewed from time to time and any decision was taken by the competent authority as such in the matter. On the other hand, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that "the K.D. sheet opened for him and it is in existence".
5. It is difficult to appreciate as to why the History sheet/K.D. sheet opened against the petitioner in the year 1978 is being continued till 1996. Admittedly, there are no cases registered against the petitioner after 1980 and evidently there is no review by the competent authority decided as to whether the History sheet opened against the petitioner should be continued. The Standing Order 735(2) requires that the concerned officer must decide as to whether there is any need of retention of History sheet. The expression used in the Standing Order No. 735 makes it clear that there should be necessity for retention of the History sheet and the same should be considered. There is nothing on record to suggest that the matter was reviewed and the competent authority felt that there was necessity to retain the History sheet- In the absence of such material and in view of the facts and circumstances of this particular case, I am of the considered opinion that the History sheet opened against the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue eternally and for ever.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, it is declared that the continuance of History sheet/K.D. sheet opened against the petitioner is illegal and consequently, there shall be a direction directing the respondents to delete the name of the petitioner from the History sheet.
7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, in the circumstances, without costs.