Telangana High Court
M.Kumaraswamy vs State Of Telangana on 18 July, 2023
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
1
W.P.No.30861 of 2021
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No. 30861 OF 2021
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"..... to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in opening Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner in Cr.No.08/Rowdy/ACP-SNR/2021, dated 413-02-2021 on the file of S.H.O. Shadnagar Police Station and continuing the same is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the respondents are not entitled to open Rowdy Sheet against the Petitioner and pass such other and further order....".
2. Mr. Ravi Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with his wife purchased an extent of Ac.2-20 gts. of land in Sy.Nos.244 and 244/A1 situated at Farooqnagar Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District through different registered sale deeds between 2011 and 2019. From the date of purchase, the petitioner and his wife are in continuous possession of the said lands. At the time of purchase, the lands were vacant and were undeveloped. Because of the rapid development in the outskirts of Hyderabad, the value of the land in and around has risen drastically and many unsocial elements tried to grab the land. In respect of this, various criminal cases were filed against the 2 W.P.No.30861 of 2021 petitioner between 2019 and 2020, though, all the disputes are civil in nature.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the former Inspector of Police, Shadnagar and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Shadnagar were entertaining the complaints and were harassing him by calling to the police station frequently and asking him to wait in the police station from morning to evening and pressurizing him to settle the disputes. As he has not yielded to their demands, several cases were filed. He submits that the police authorities have no business to interfere in civil disputes. He submits that several civil cases are also pending. It is submitted that the municipal counselor has trespassed into the land and tried to install the poles, he went to the police station and the Police Inspector made him to wait from morning to evening without receiving the complaint and forcibly obtained his signatures. In the evening, it is stated that he was arrested in FIR No.587 of 2020, dated 22-08-2020 and on the same date he filed a bail application i.e. Crl.M.P.No.270 of 2020 in Cr.No.587 of 2020 and the Inspector of Police requested to issue PT warrant and Magistrate refused the same. Thereafter he has surrendered before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First 3 W.P.No.30861 of 2021 Class, Shadnagar on 26-11-2020 and filed bail application in Crl.M.P No.269 of 2020 in Cr.No.588 of 2020 and he was enlarged on bail. When there was continuous interference from the police in civil disputes, the petitioner filed W.P No.1779 of 2021 and this Court admitted the same on 01-02-2021 and so far, no counter is filed by the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner has taken a specific plea that they are going to open a rowdy sheet against him. He submits that as apprehended by the petitioner, before getting transferred the officer had opened a rowdy sheet on 13-02-2021 which came to his notice at a later point of time. When the respondents are frequently calling him to the police station, the petitioner has made an application under RTI Act, requesting him to provide information with regard to opening of rowdy sheet. Then proceedings dated 25.08.2021 were issued stating that the rowdy sheet has been opened by the order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, dated 13.02.2021 and there are three cases pending against the petitioner. Cr.No.830 of 2019 was compromised and it was closed and Cr.No.42 of 2019 is pending. It is submitted that there is no necessity to open a rowdy sheet against the petitioner.
4W.P.No.30861 of 2021
It is submitted that the ingredients in Police Standing Orders 601 relating to opening Rowdy Sheet are not attracted in case of the petitioner. All the cases that are pending are purely civil disputes. It is submitted that there are no circumstances warranting opening of a rowdy sheet against the petitioner. It is submitted that Rowdy sheet cannot be opened in a mechanical, routine and cavalier manner and it touches the personal liberty of the citizen and has considerable impact on the fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution. Learned counsel has relied on the Judgment in Mohd. Sadiq Shareef vs. State of Telangana rep. by its Secretary 1 , wherein this Court has held that, while opening a Rowdy sheet against an individual, strict adherence to the relevant provisions is mandatory. Opening a rowdy sheet affects the life and liberty of a citizen and the Court has disposed of the Writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to submit a representation before the 2nd respondent within the period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order and if any such representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be verified and appropriate action shall be taken strictly in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter, particularly keeping in mind the observations made 1 2019 (1) ALT 283 5 W.P.No.30861 of 2021 in the Judgment. Learned counsel submits that opening the rowdy sheet against the petitioner is nothing but pure abuse of process of law.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Home submits that a counter affidavit has been filed stating that the petitioner is a unlawful character locally and continuously indulging in commission of lawless acts involving breach of public peace and tranquility. They have referred to four cases; one is Cr.No.588 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 504, 506 IPC., Cr.No.587 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 504, 506 IPC., Cr.No.42 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 447, 427 read with Section 34 IPC. and Cr.No.830 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 341, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. which is compromised and according to them the pending cases are three. Petitioner has been continuously involving in the criminal cases, it has become incumbent on the part of police to open a rowdy sheet to keep watch on his activities and to curtail the unlawful activities. It is submitted that they made a requisition on 11-02-2021 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police that the petitioner was involved in criminal cases and requested to accord permission to open rowdy sheet. 6 W.P.No.30861 of 2021 Accordingly, permission was obtained. He submits that the petitioner is causing nuisance to public health. It is stated that as per A.P. Police Manual Order No.601, persons can be classified as rowdy sheeter and the petitioner being a habitual offender they have opened the rowdy sheet and there is no illegality in opening the rowdy sheet.
4. Learned counsel has relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble High court of Andhra Pradesh in Udathu Suresh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh2 and submits that the learned Judge while discussing various Judgments of the Apex Court has declared the standing order of the A.P Police Manual to the extent of opening/continuation of Rowdy Sheet, Suspect Sheet, History Sheet and on that basis, the surveillance of the individual is void. Learned Judge has held that the life and liberty cannot be curtailed basing on a Police Standing Order. Relying on the said Judgment, he submits that respondent police have no authority or jurisdiction to open the rowdy sheet.
5. The Constitution of India has guaranteed the fundamental rights to its citizens. Right to life and personal liberty is an important fundamental right. A person's right to life 2 2022 (5) ALT 338 7 W.P.No.30861 of 2021 and liberty cannot be interfered without the sanction of law. It is a long standing practice that in the pursuit of maintaining peace and tranquility, when any person is continuously indulged in the activities by disturbing the public order and security, basing on the police orders, the police have been opening the rowdy sheet and reviewing it from time to time. Whenever the police failed to follow the police standing orders and whenever there is arbitrary action on behalf of the police in this regard, this Court interfered and directed to close the rowdy sheet. Now, by virtue of the Judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no such authority to open the rowdy sheet. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that against the said order, Writ Appeal was preferred by the State and an interim order was passed in the said Appeal.
6. Be that as it may, in this Writ Petition, the petitioner has not questioned the police Order basing on which the rowdy sheets are opened and maintained. Hence, this Court will not go into the said issue. Maintaining peace and tranquility and the social order is in greater public interest. Unless and until there is an alternative mechanism in place, straight away holding that 8 W.P.No.30861 of 2021 basing on standing orders, rowdy sheets cannot be opened, will have far-reaching consequences. If all the rowdy sheets are closed on this count, it will be difficult to the police to have control on the anti-social elements and in maintaining law and order. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to consider the Judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Udthu Suresh's case.
7. Then coming to the opening of the rowdy sheet and continuing the same, according to the petitioner there were only three cases pending against him. There are civil disputes pending and basing on the said civil disputes, these cases are registered by the respondent police in a vindictive manner. It is the case of the police that the petitioner is disturbing the public peace and tranquility and as several cases are pending as per the requisition made by them the Assistant Commissioner has granted permission for opening of a rowdy sheet and accordingly they have opened the rowdy sheet. Petitioner has obtained several communications under the Right to Information Act and he has also made several allegations against the police officer.
8. At this Juncture, it is apt to look at Police Manual Order No.601. The following persons may be classified as 9 W.P.No.30861 of 2021 rowdies and Rowdy sheets may be opened for them under the order of the higher authorities:
A) Person 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 Section 106, 107, 108 (1) (i) and 110 (e) (g) of Cr.P.C.
C) Persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under Section 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 girl and pass incident remarks.
E) Rowdy Sheets for the rowdies residing in one Police station area but found frequenting the other PS area, 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 with habit of collecting money by extortion from shop keepers 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, 1986. I) Persons who are convicted for offences under the Representation of the peoples Act for rigging and carrying away ballot papers, Boxes and other polling material.
9. The respondents have to follow the said Police Manual Order No.601 for opening the rowdy sheet. Considering the different stands taken by both the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to make a representation within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the 10 W.P.No.30861 of 2021 copy of the order and the Assistant Commissioner ie. the 3rd respondent shall consider the said representation strictly in accordance with law and as per the parameters laid down by this Court and strictly in compliance with Police Manual Order No.601. The 3rd respondent shall take appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation by the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. The miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand automatically closed.
___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 18th July, 2023 mmr 11 W.P.No.30861 of 2021 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION No. 30861 OF 2021 18.07.2023 mmr