Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Mohammed Quadeer And Others vs Commissioner Of Police, Hyderabad And ... on 30 March, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(3)ALD60, 1999(2)ALT733
Author: B. Sudershan Reddy
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy
ORDER
1. The petitioners arc the citizens of India. They are all brothers and residents of old city of Hyderabad. They all claim to have come from a family with good reputation. They claim to be small business men and running business like Kirana stores and Commission merchant. They claim to be doing business in the name and style of "Deccan Traders".
2. The petitioners say that they are the victims in the hands of antisocial elements, who demand money from the local people. They even go to the extent of alleging that those antisocial elements have the backing and support of politicians of the Old City, who are active in communal politics.
3. It is stated that the petitioners are falsely implicated in a criminal case, which was ultimately tried as SC No.55S of 1995 and they were acquitted on 31-1-1997 after trial. It is stated that during the progress of the trial, the local politicians demanded money from the petitioners to get them released and on their refusal got the rowdy sheets opened against them with the help of local police. The fact remains that even before the acquittal of the said case, the petitioners were accused of another crime - Cr. No. 15/96 on the file of Bhavaninagar Police Station.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are being regularly called to the Police Station after opening of the rowdy sheets against them. It is alleged that on many occasions they were asked to stay in the Police Station for days together and no arrest was affected. It is also their case that as the cases registered against them have ended in acquittal, there is no justification whatsoever for continuing the rowdy sheets opened against them. The continuance of the rowdy sheets opened against them is without any valid ground. The action on the part of the respondents is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners herein along with their another brother, Chand filed WPNo.20039/98 in this Court assailing the action of the respondents in opening rowdy sheets against them. This Court by order dated : 28-7-1998 disposed of the said writ petition directing the petitioners herein to file an appropriate representation before the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, for deleting their names from the rowdy sheets with further direction to the Commissioner of Police to take an appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with the Police Standing Orders. The petitioners have accordingly filed a representation on 10-8-1998 before the Commissioner of Police requesting to close the rowdy sheets opened against them. It is complained that no decision as such has been taken by the Commissioner of Police on their application in spite of the directions from this Court. It is under those circumstances, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioners to call for the concerned records from the respondents relating to opening of rowdy sheets against all of them and quash the same.
5. The record produced by the respondents would show that rowdy sheets were opened against all the petitioners on 16-8-1994. They were accused of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 302 read with 34 IPC in Cr. No.21/93 of P.S., Bhavaninagar. The incident is alleged to have been taken place on 27-5-1993. It is an admitted fact that the cases registered against the petitioners ended in acquittal. The case registered under Section 107 Cr.PC in Cr. No.113 of 1993, against the petitioners also ended in acquittal. But the petitioners were bound over by the Executive Magistrate under Section 107 Cr.PC in Cr.No.36 of 1993 of P.S., Bhavaninagar.
6. The third petitioner is alleged to have involved in Cr.No.28 of 1994 on the allegation of commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC read with 34 IPC, but the same also ended in acquittal. All the petitioners were involved in another case in Cr. No. 15/96 registered under Section 147, 148, 307, 302 read with 49 IPC on the file of Bhavaninagar Police Station, which was ultimately tried as SC No.379/97 and the same has also ended in acquittal on 17-8-1998. Thus, all the cases registered against the petitioners have ended in acquittal.
7. The rowdy sheets opened against the petitioners are being renewed every year ever since 1994, for a period of one year. The reasons for renewing the rowdy sheets in the case of all the petitioners arc one and the same, which is stated in the record in the following terms :
"The rowdy sheeter is active and young. He needs surveillance."
The proposal for renewal of the rowdy sheets is moved by the concerned Inspector of Police and placed before the Assistant Commissioner of Police concerned. The Assistant Commissioner of Police in turn does not record his own reasons, but merely affixes his signature. The rowdy sheets were renewed year after year even when no adverse information came to the notice of the respondents. At the time of renewal of the rowdy sheets in the year 1998 and 1999, it is uniformly observed by the officer concerned that there are no complaints against any one of the petitioners, but the rowdy sheets are sought to be renewed on the ground that they are active and young. In the case of the second petitioner, nothing is stated against him as to why rowdy sheet should be renewed. The Inspector of Police, P.S., Moghulpura requested for renewal of the rowdy sheet and the Asst. Commissioner of Police accordingly affixed his signature. The record would disclose that at no point of time, the Asst. Commissioner of Police made any effort whatsoever to look into the record. The record would disclose that at the bottom of the request of the Inspector of Police for renewal of the rowdy sheets, a seal is put which is as under :
"Renewed for the year .....
Sd/-
Asst. Commissioner of Police"
The blank relating to the year is filled. Some times the request is made for renewal of the rowdy sheet on the ground that the rowdy sheeter is active and potential. The surveillance report week after week, at least from 1996 onwards, would disclose that there were no complaints whatsoever against any of the petitioners. It is even reported that all the petitioners are attending to their respective business without any complaints whatsoever. Yet the authorities thought it fit to renew the rowdy sheets. None of the petitioners are involved in any criminal cases after 21-3-1996. In the case of the first petitioner, the rowdy sheet is renewed under the orders of the Asst. Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk, on a report submilted by the Inspector of Police, Moghulpura stating that "the rowdy sheeter is present. At present there are no complaints against him. However, the rowdy sheet may be renewed for the year 1998 to watch his activities."
8. At least for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999, the rowdy sheets opened against the petitioners are renewed on the ground that they are young and active. No adverse material is found against them in the record. The officers have noted in the file that there is nothing against them. Yet, the rowdy sheets opened against them are renewed year after year on the mere asking by the Inspector of Police concerned.
9. The record also would disclose that the petitioners were repeatedly summoned to the Police Station for the purpose of recording their attendance. On some occasions, the petitioners were even made to file applications explaining reasons for their non attending the Police Station. There is an endorsement on 20-11-1994 stating that "the rowdy sheeter came to the Police Station for attending and gave an application station for attending and gave an application stating that he along with his brothers is going to Ajmer Shareef Dargah on 21-11-1994 and after coming from Ajmer they will come for attendance."
10. The A.P. Police Standing Order 742 provides for opening of a rowdy sheet under the order of the Superintendent of Police or Sub-Divisional Officer, against the persons classified as rowdies.
Classification of Persons :
Persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offences involving a breach of peace may be classified as rowdies.
Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(c) and 110(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would also be classified as rowdies.
We are not concerned with other class of persons, who may be classified as rowdies under standing order 742 for the present.
11. Chapter 31 of the A.P. Police Standing Orders provides for maintaining Station Crime History in five parts in all police stations. The same is a confidential record. Part I is crime, occurrence and classification Register; Part II shall contain crime chart or charts and Part III of the Station Crime History shall be in Form 85, which is styled as General conviction Register; whereas Part IV is in Form 86 containing notes of important factions and disputes, especially between castes and communities, and regarding the commission of serious breaches of the peace. Part V consists of History sheets of persons residing permanently or temporarily in the station limits, who are known or believed to be addicted to or to aid and abet the commission of crime, whether convicted or not, or who are believed to be habitual receivers.
12. Standing Order 742 forms part of Chapter 31. It may be noticed that rowdy sheets in Form 88 are different from the History sheets maintained in Form 87 of the A.P. Police Standing Orders. The History sheets are required to be opened automatically at the time of conviction of the persons convicted under the offence, details whereof are mentioned in SO 734. It is that History sheet which is required to be retained for a period of two years after release from the jail. Thus, it is clear that the History sheet shall be automatically opened in respect of persons convicted of certain offences under Chapter XII and XVII of the IPC and under Sections 395 to 402 IPC etc. The persons convicted under the said provisions are characterised and styled as "Known Depredators". It is against those known depredators, the history sheet is automatically opened and shall be in operation for a period of two years after release of the convict from jail. History sheet also could be opened against the suspects and suspects are classified as persons once convicted under any section of the Indian Penal Code who are considered likely to commit crime again and persons, not convicted, but believed to be addicted to crime. But such history sheets could be opened against the suspects under the orders of the Superintendent of Police or Sub-Divisional Officer, but not automatically.
13. SO-735 provides for discontinuance of history sheets and also for renewal. Since we are presently concerned with the interpretation of the said Standing Order, it would be apposite to have a look at S.O. 735, which reads as under :
"Discontinuance of History Sheets :
(1) History sheets shall be closed by the definite orders of a gazetted officer and shall be filed in the Station. The History sheets of persons, who have died, shall be destroyed by the order of a gazetted officer The Superintendent of Police may order the closure of a History sheet at any time, but a Sub-Divisional Officer may only do so on the expiry of the periods named above.
(2) 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 extension from January to December.
14. Sub-Clause (2) of SO-742 makes applicable SO-735 for discontinuance of ine rowdy sheets also as in the case of History sheets. As noticed, SO-735 provides for closure of History sheets under the definite orders of a gazetted officer. The Superintendent of Police may order the closure of the History sheet at any time, but the Sub-Divisional Officer may only do so on the expiry of the periods named. Sub-Clause (2) of SO 735 provides for retention of the history sheets. It provides that a history sheet may be retained when it is considered necessary after two years of registration, under the orders of a gazetted officer, for a period in the first instance upto the end of the next December and for further annual extensions from January to December. The expression 'registration' used in sub-clause (2) of SO 735 obviously does not carry any meaning. The history sheet opened under SO 734 shall be retained for a period of two years after release of the convicted persons from the jail. Obviously, it has nothing to do with the registration of the history sheet. The period of two years runs from the date of release of the conviction from the jaii.
15. It may be relevant to notice that A.P. Policed Standing Orders are not framed under any statute. They are not in the nature of Rules or Regulations. It is a compilation of various Governmental Orders right from the pre-independence days till recently. The compilation is published under the orders of the Government vide G.O. Ms. No.308, Home (Police-D) Department, dated 9-2-1960. The order of the Government, itself, declared that the A.P. Police Manual submitted by the Inspector General of Police does not supersede any statutory rule, service rules or other orders issued by the Government from time to time. It further declares that the Manual does not invest police officers with any powers of arrest, detention, investigation of crimes etc., not specifically conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Indian Penal Code or other Central or State Laws on the subject. The Manual merely contains the Governmental Orders issued from time to time depending upon the exigencies and the situation. May be the Police Officers being subordinate to the Government are bound by the same. The said Manual containing the Police Standing Orders is required to be so read so as to be in conformity with the Constitutional scheme and various statutes such as the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Penal Code. Wherever necessary restricted meaning is required to be given and may be read down so as to save the same from the vice of un-constitutionality. Most of them may not stand the scrutiny, if challenged. However, I do not propose to express any opinion on the constitutionality of any of the Standing Orders, as the same is not put in issue before me.
16. Sub-Clause (2) of SO-735 provides for retention of History sheet, if considered necessary under the orders of a gazetted officer. Even according to the Standing Orders, History Sheets, as well as the rowdy sheets are confidential documents maintained in the police station. It is mostly meant for the information of the Police. It enables the Police and the village Magistrates to keep watch over the persons against whom such sheets are opened. Infact, there is no provision for keeping watch or surveillance in respect of persons against whom the rowdy sheets are opened. Standing Order 749 obligates the police to keep a watch over the persons against whom History Sheets have been opened. There appears to be lot of confusion in this regard. Some times the History Sheets and rowdy sheets are treated as one and the same, though clear distinction appears to have been maintained under the Standing Orders. A liberal and extended meaning of history sheets as including the rowdy sheets alone would enable the police to keep watch and surveillance over the rowdy sheeters. Otherwise, there is no meaning whatsoever as to the opening of the rowdy sheet, itself.
17. Can the retention of the rowdy sheets be considered as a routine matter ? Can it be retained in a casual and mechanical manner ? Any intense application of mind by the concerned gazetted officer is required ?
18. Sub-Clause (2) of SO 735, itself, says that where retention of history sheet is considered necessary after two years of registration, orders of a gazetted officer must be taken.
What is the meaning of 'Consideration'.
'Consider' means contemplate mentally especially in order to reach a conclusion and 'considered' means formed after careful thought (a considered opinion). (See : Concise Oxford Dictionary, New Edition for 1990s).
'Consideration' means the fact or thing taken into account in deciding or judging something. 'Considered' means to fix the mind on, with a view to careful examination. To deliberate about and ponder over. (See : Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition).
20. Merits of each case may have to be examined. Upon such examination, the concerned officer has to reach a conclusion that it is inevitable to retain the rowdy sheet. Obviously such consideration of necessity to retain the rowdy sheet is with reference to the material available on record. It is not a matter of course. The record produced in this case would disclose a classic case of non application of mind. The officer concerned merely affixed his signature as against the request made by the Inspector of Police. The whole issue is treated as a matter of no consequence.
21. The Apex Court in The Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. A.J. Rana, , having considered the expression 'consider it necessary' observed :
"The words 'considers it necessary' postulate that the authority concerned has thought over the matter deliberately and with care and it has been found necessary as a result of such thinking to pass an order. The dictionary meaning of the word 'consider' is 'to view attentively, to survey, examine, inspect (arch), to look attentively, to contemplate mentally, to think over, mediate on, give heed to, take note of, to think deliberately, be think oneself, to reflect' (vide shorter Oxford Dictionary). According to Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition, Vol. 8-A 'to consider' means to think with care. It is also mentioned that to 'consider' is to fix the mind upon with a view to careful examination; to ponder; study; mediate upon, think or reflect with care. It is, therefore, manifest that careful thinking or due application of the mind regarding the necessity to obtain and examine the documents in question is sine qua non for the making of the order. If the impugned order were to show that there has been no careful thinking or proper application of the mind as to the necessity of obtaining and examining the documents specified in the order, the essential 'requisite to the making of the order would be held to be non-existent."
22. A reading of the Standing Order would show that the gazetted officer, after consideration must arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to the existence of circumstances warranting retention or renewal of the rowdy sheet. The reasons need not be disclosed to the concerned person. But, if questioned the authority concerned is required to atleast prove prima facie as to the necessity of continuing the rowdy sheet. The record shall contain the reasons and the conclusions. The conclusions must relate to the necessity of continuing the rowdy sheets. If the record does not disclose the reasons and ground, the order becomes challengeable on the ground of non application of mind or perversity on the ground that the opinion was formed on collateral grounds.
23. Learned Government Pleader for Home, however, would urge that opening of a rowdy sheet, itself, does not cause any grave prejudice and effect the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The learned Government Pleader submits that rowdy sheets or history sheets, as the case may be, are opened only for the purposes of keeping surveillance on the movements of the persons concerned. Such surveillance, itself, would not make any serious inroads into the liberty of the person concerned. The learned Government Pleader concedes that the police is not entitled to summon or require attendance of any person against whom rowdy sheet has been opened. But the record in the instant case would disclose the repeated summoning of the petitioners by the concerned police. Even they were made to file an application asking for dispensing with their attendance when they were to leave the City of Hyderabad on a pilgrimage. I find it very difficult to agree with the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader.
24. It is settled law that the right of life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India means some thing more than survival or animal existence, but a right to the possession of each of his organs - his arms and legs etc. It guarantees right to privacy.
25. In Govind v. State of M.P., , the Apex Court while dealing with the M.P. Police Regulations regarding domiciliary visits and subjecting persons to surveillance etc., observed :
"Rights and freedoms of the citizens are set forth in the Constitution in order to guarantee that the individual, his personality and those things stamped with his personality shall be free from official interference except where a reasonable basis for intrusion exists. "Liberty against Government" a phrase coined by Professor Corwin expresses his idea forcefully. In this seme, many of the fundamental rights of citizens can be described as contributing to the right to privacy"
"Having reached this conclusion, we are satisfied that drastic in roads directly into the privacy and indirectly into the fundamental rights, of a citizen will be made if Regulations 855 and 856 were to be read widely. To interpret the rule in harmony with the Constitution is therefore necessary and canalisation of the powers vested in the police by the two Regulations earlier read becomes necessary, if they are to be saved at all. Our founding fathers were thoroughly opposed to a Police Raj even as our history of the struggle for freedom has borne eloquent testimony to it. The relevant Articles of the Constitution we have adverted to earlier, behove us therefore to narrow down the scope for play of the two Regulations. We proceed to give direction and restriction to the application of the said regulations with the caveat that if any action were taken beyond the boundaries so set, the citizen will be entitled to attack such action as unconstitutional and void."
It is further held:
"...in our view, empowers surveillance only of persons against whom reasonable materials exist to induce the opinion that they show 'a determination, to lead a life of crime' -- crime in this context being confined to such as involve public peace or security only and if they are dangerous security risks. Mere convictions in criminal case where nothing gravely imperils safety of society can be regarded as warranting surveillance under this Regulation. Similarly, domiciliary visits and picketing by the police should be reduced to the clearest cases of danger to community security and not routine follow-up at the end of a conviction or release from prison or at the whim of a police officer. In truth, legality apart, these regulations ill-accord with the essence, of personal freedoms and the State will do well to revise these old police regulations verging perilously near unconsitiutionality."
26. In Malak Singh v. State of Punjab, , the Apex Court dealing with the same question as to the consequences of keeping discreet surveillance observed that interference in accordance with law for the prevention of disorder and crime is not prohibited. But, surveillance may be instrusive and it may so seriously encroach on the privacy of a citizen as to infringe his fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the 'Constitution of India and the freedom of movement guaranteed by Article 19(1)(d). That cannot be permitted. It is further observed that the police have no licence to enter the names of whoever they like in the surveillance register, nor can the surveillance be such as to squeeze the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to all citizens or to obstruct the free exercise and enjoyment of those freedoms; nor can the surveillance so intrude as to offend the dignity of the individual. Surveillance of persons who do not fall within the categories mentioned in Rule 23.4 or for the reasons unconnected with the prevention of crime, or excessive surveillance falling beyond the limits prescribed by the Rules, will entitle a citizen to the Court's protection which the Court will not hesitate to give.
27. The Apex Court further held that the entry in the register can only be made by the order of the Superintendent of Police who is prohibited from delegating his authority. Further it is necessary that the Superintendent of Police must entertain reasonable belief that persons whose names are to be eniered in Part-II are habitual offenders or receivers of the stolen property. While it may not be necessary to supply the grounds of belief to the persons whose names are entered in the surveillance register, it may become necessary in some cases to satisfy the Court when an entry is challenged that there are grounds to entertain such reasonable belief.
28. The review of the decision making process by the respondents in the instant case by applying the standard and the principle laid down by the Apex Court, it has to be held that the record does not reveal any material whatsoever facilitating entertainment of a reasonable belief for the retention of the rowdy sheets against the petitioners. In fact, there is no material revealing any serious consideration whatsoever as to the necessity of retention or renewal of the rowdy sheet.
29. In Hussain Hassan Somali v. Commissioner of Police, 1991 Crl.LJ 185, this Court while dealing with the very same Police Standing Order 742 held that the continuance of the rowdy sheet without any material adverse to the petitioner on record would be illegal. It was a case where the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner therein was continued for a period of ten years after his acquittal in a criminal case. Retention of the rowdy sheet was quashed.
Right to Reputation:
30, In Kiran Bedi & Jinder Singh v. Committee of Inquiry, , the Apex Court while dealing with the question as to whether the right to reputation is a guaranteed fundamental right, relied upon the statement of law found in Corpus Juris Secundum. It reads:
"It is stated in the definition of Person, 70 CJS, P.688, note 66 that legally the term "person" includes not only the physical body and members, but also every bodily sense and personal attribute, among which is the reputation a man has acquired. Blackstone in his commentaries classifies and distinguishes those rights which are annexed to the person, jura personarum, and acquired rights in external- objects, jura rerum; and in the former he includes personal security, which consists in a person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation. And he makes the corresponding classification of remedies. The idea expressed is that a man's reputation is a part of himself as his body and limbs are, and reputation is a sort of right to enjoy the good opinion of others, and it is capable of growth and real existence, as an arm or leg. Reputation is, therefore, a personal right, and the right to reputation is put among those absolute personal rights equal in dignity and importance to security from violence. According to Chancellor Kent, "as a part of the rights of personal security, the preservation of every person's good name from the vile arts of detraction is justly included. The laws of the ancients, no less than those of modern nations made private reputation one of the objects of their protection.
The right to the enjoyment of a good reputation is a valuable privilege, of ancient origin, and necessary to human society, as stated in Libel and Slander Section 4; and this right is within the constitutional guarantee of personal security as stated in Constitutional Law Section 205, and a person may not be deprived of this right through falsehood and violence without liability for the injury as stated in Libel and Slander Section 4.
Detraction from a man's reputation is an injury to his personality, and thus, an injury to reputation is a personal injury, that is, an injury to an absolute personal right."
31. Opening of a rowdy sheet against a citizen is undoubtedly fraught with serious consequences. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees right to life with dignity and the right to live, as a dignified man, carries with it the right to reputation. Right to reputation is an integral part of right to life guaranteed by Article 21, and such a right cannot be deprived except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such laws which authorise the Police to open rowdy sheets and exercise surveillance are required to be very strictly construed. Opening of the rowdy sheets and retention thereof except in accordance with law would amount to infringement of fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is true that the State is duty bound at all levels to protect the persons and property from the criminals and criminal activity. Prevention of organised crime is an obligation on the part of the State.
Right to Privacy:
32. Fundamental rights and civil liberties exist and can only flourish in an orderly society. Civil liberties and fundamental rights are intimately connected with the nature and dynamics of the Society. It is the duty of the Police to deal with crime and criminals expeditiously and effectively while at the same time holding to the values and concepts of the fundamental rights and the Constitution. Both the competing interests are to be reconciled. This much is clear so far as our Constitutional system is concerned that intrusion into personal liberty without an authority of law is forbidden. Surveillance and watching of movements of a citizen by the Police is not a matter of course. Such rights can be exercised by the Police only in accordance with law which permits such surveillance. The action in this regard which is in accordance with law may result in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Every citizen has fundamental right and entitled to indulge in harmless activities without observation or interference. It is a right to be left alone. The guarantee in Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights that "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and has correspondence" reflects both the individual's psychological need to preserve an intrusion-free zone of personality and family, and the anguish and stress which can be suffered when that zone is violated. The saying that 'an Englishman's home is his castle' would be equally applicable to Indian situation and it can be said that an 'Indian citizen's home is his castle.'
33. Therefore, I have no hesitation whatsoever to reject the plea that mere surveillance and watch by the Police itself would not infringe the fundamental rights of a citizen. Such surveillance and watch which is not authorised by law may be unconstitutional. Such surveillance and watch even if it is authorised by law but if it is not in accordance with that law would equally be unconstitutional.
34. The impugned action of opening rowdy sheets against the petitioners with a view to keep watch and surveillance is not in accordance with law.
35. The Commissioner of Police appears to have disposed of the representations made by the petitioners herein through the proceedings dated 21-1-1999 pursuant to the directions of this Court in WP No.20039 of 1998 during the pendency of this writ petition. The proceedings of the Commissioner dated 21-1-1999 is not even marked to the petitioners. The reports submitted by the Assistant Commission and the Deputy Commissioner appear to have taken into consideration. The record reveals that the Assistant Commissioner forwarded the representation of the petitioners dated 10-8-1998 with an endorsement "Forwarded. Request to continue the sheet". The Deputy Commissioner of Police in turn forwarded the same with the endorsement "In the circumstances, it is desirable to continue the rowdy sheet in public interest and in the interest of maintenance of law and order." The Commissioner of Police merely repeats as to what is stated in the endorsement of the Deputy Commissioner and instructs the officers to continue to maintain the rowdy sheets in the interest of maintenance of law and order and public interest.
36. The order of the Commissioner evidently is not in conformity with the requirement in law, Opening of the rowdy sheet has nothing to do with the maintenance of law and order. As observed earlier there is no materials whatsoever on record since 1996 that the petitioners indulging any act resulting in breach of peace. There are no cases registered against them ever since March, 1996. The record, on the other hand, would reveal that there are no complaints whatsoever against any of the petitioners.
37. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the Commissioner of Police dated 21-1-1999 is set aside. The respondents are directed to close the rowdy sheets opened against the petitioners. Let a writ of Mandamus be issued.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
38. No order as to costs.