Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Komaram Venkanna Dora, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 6 October, 2020
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
****
W.P. No.2309 of 2020
Between:
Komaram Venkanna Dora,
S/o. late Somanna Dora
Aged about 50 years,
Occ: Agriculture, Social Service
R/o. Seethapalli Village, Rampachodavaram Mandal
East Godavari District - 533 288
.... Petitioner
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Principal Secretary
Home Department, Velagapudi
Amaravathi, Guntur District
and four others
.... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 06.10.2020
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes / No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes / No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes / No
_________________________
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
2
UDPR, J
WP.No.2309 of 2020
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
+ W.P. No.2309 of 2020
% 06.10.2020
Between:
Komaram Venkanna Dora,
S/o. late Somanna Dora
Aged about 50 years,
Occ: Agriculture, Social Service
R/o. Seethapalli Village, Rampachodavaram Mandal
East Godavari District - 533 288
.... Petitioner
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Principal Secretary
Home Department, Velagapudi
Amaravathi, Guntur District
and four others
.... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri J.Satya Prasad
^ Counsel for Respondents : Assistant Government Pleader
for Home
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) 2000(1) ALD (Cri)117 = MANU/AP/1027/1999
2) AIR 1964 SC 33 = MANU/SC/0074/1963
3) AIR 1966 SC 1766
4) 1998 (Cri L J) 1888 = MANU/AP/0149/1997
5) MANU/AP/0999/1998 = 1998 (3) ALT 55
6) MANU/AP/0404/2015 = 2016 (1) ALD (Crl.) 591 (AP)
3
UDPR, J
WP.No.2309 of 2020
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
Writ Petition No.2309 of 2020
ORDER:
The pitiable case of the petitioner herein who is a scheduled tribe is, for the sin of espousing the cause of the fellow innocent victim tribes before the Collector & District Magistrate of East Godavari District imploring to ameliorate their conditions, he was implicated in several criminal cases and ultimately branded as rowdy sheeter. He filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondent police authorities to close the rowdy sheet that was opened against him in the year 2011.
2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:
(a) The petitioner is a graduate and he belongs to Koya community of Scheduled Tribe. In order to protect the interest of tribals in the agency area of East Godavari District, they established Aadivasi (Girijana) Samkshema and Samskruthika Sangham in the year 2002 with the permission of ITDA Project Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioner worked as General Secretary of said Sangham. On behalf of the said Sangham, the petitioner and others used to petition to the Collector, ITDA Project Officer and other revenue officials about the travails of Girijans and how the non-
tribals were exploiting them. As a member of Scheduled Tribe, the petitioner actively participated in various programmes in order to protect their rights. In that course the petitioner and others submitted 4 UDPR, J WP.No.2309 of 2020 a representation dated 18.01.2010 to the District Collector about the encroachments made by non-tribals into the tribal lands and their other atrocious acts. The Collector vide his letter in L.Dis.F2/237/2010 dated 22.01.2010 while forwarding their representation, instructed the Project Officer, RDO and other revenue officers to implement all the tribal laws in true spirit and see that there would not be any violations.
(b) The petitioner's further case is that bore grudge against the petitioner and some others, the vested interests and some politicians got foisted false cases against them. The petitioner is concerned, he was falsely implicated in (i) Sessions Case No.512/2011 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry (Cr.No.41/2011) for the offences under Sections 384, 354 r/w 34 IPC which was ended in acquittal (ii) C.C.No.221/2011 on the file of JFCM, Rampachodavaram for the offences under Sections 420, 506 IPC and ended in acquittal on 07.12.2011 (iii) C.C.No.229/2011 on the file of JFCM, Rampachodavaram under Section 420 IPC and ended in acquittal on 25.02.2012 (iv) C.C.No.220/2011 on the file of JFCM, Rampachodavaram under Section 384 IPC (Cr.No.53/2011) ended in acquittal on 22.02.2012 (v) C.C.No.62/2011 (Cr.No.20/2011) on the file of JFCM, Rampachodavaram under Section 324 IPC ended in acquittal on 22.02.2012.
(c) Though all the above false cases were ended in acquittal, however, the SHO, Rampachodavaram (5th respondent) obtained 5 UDPR, J WP.No.2309 of 2020 permission from the higher authorities to open rowdy sheet against the petitioner citing the above crimes. Upon his request, the 3rd respondent permitted to open rowdy sheet on 20.08.2011. Accordingly Rowdy Sheet No.01/2011 of Rampachodavaram P.S. was opened against him. All the cases mentioned supra were foisted only to intimidate the petitioner and other members and they were ended in acquittal, but the rowdy sheet was opened showing those cases. The petitioner was not a habitual offender and he only fought for the rights of the Girijans. Subsequent to 2011 he was not involved in any cases. However, every year his rowdy sheet is reviewed and extended mechanically causing any amount of embarrassment to the petitioner and his family members and also violating his fundamental rights of liberty and free movement.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. The 3rd respondent filed counter, while denying the petition averments, inter alia contends thus.
(a) The petitioner has scant respect towards law and order as he was involved in the following criminal cases registered on the file of Rampachodavaram Police Station, East Godavari District.
1) Cr.No.20/2011 u/Secs.384 r/w.Sec.34 IPC.
(ended in acquittal on 22.02.2012 vide
C.C.No.62/2011)
2) Cr.No.41/2011 u/Secs.384, 354 r/w.Sec.34 IPC.
(ended in acquittal vide PRC.No.5/2011
dt.27.11.2011)
6
UDPR, J
WP.No.2309 of 2020
3) Cr.No.53/2011 U/Secs.383 r/w.Sec.34 IPC.
(ended in acquittal vide CC.No.220/2011
dt.22.02.2012)
4) Cr.No.54/2011 u/Sec.420 IPC
(Compromised in Lok Adalat Court on 07.02.2011 vide C.C.No.221/2011)
5) Cr.No.100/2011 u/Sec.420 IPC (ended in compromise in Lok Adalat Court vide C.C.No.229/2011)
6) Cr.No.23/2014 u/Sec.110(e) Cr.P.C (bind over) vide M.C.No.6/2014
7) Cr.No.21/2019 u/Sec.110(e) Cr.P.C dt.08.02.2019 vide M.C.No.7/2019
(b) Due to the above criminal cases involving extortion and cheating of innocent people for getting wrongful gain, Rowdy Sheet No.1/2011 has been opened on 20.08.2011 to curb his unlawful activities in the vicinity of Rampachodavaram Police Station limits after obtaining permission from the higher authorities. As per the A.P. Police Manual Standing Order No.602(2), even though a suspect/rowdy having history sheet is not figuring as an accused in the previous 5 years after the last case in which he was involved, still the authorities can continue his history sheet if in their considered view, his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or one effecting peace and tranquillity in the area or the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him. It is further stated that bound over case vide Crime No.21/2019 dated 08.02.2019 is filed for keeping good behaviour for a period of one year vide M.C.No.7/2019. However, in view of the public interest and mainly to curtail his unlawful activities in the 7 UDPR, J WP.No.2309 of 2020 vicinity of Rampachodavaram Police Station limits, the rowdy sheet has been continued. Unless a close watch is being maintained against his unlawful activities, the petitioner has every chance of repeating the offences. Although, the criminal cases registered against him were ended in acquittal on various grounds, that does not confer right on the petitioner to seek closure of rowdy sheet which was opened in view of the public interest. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner Sri J. Satya Prasad, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing the respondents.
5. Vehemently remonstrating the opening and continuation of rowdy sheet, learned counsel for petitioner would argue that since the petitioner in the capacity of General Secretary of Aadivasi (Girijana) Samkshema and Samskruthika Sangham was submitting petitions to the Collector and other revenue officials against the exploitative acts of non-tribals against the tribals, some politicians and vested interests got foisted false cases against him, which were all ended in acquittal between 2011-2012. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be termed as habitual offender in strict sense to empower the respondent authorities to open a rowdy sheet under the then A.P. Police Manual Standing Order No.601. Even assuming that rowdy sheet was opened because of pendency of criminal cases at that time, the authorities should have closed the said rowdy sheet after acquittal of accused in all the cases. 8
UDPR, J WP.No.2309 of 2020 However, without any justifiable cause, the respondent authorities have continued the rowdy sheet even after 2012 till date. Learned counsel strenuously argued that subsequent to 2012, the petitioner was not involved in any criminal cases except in two bind over cases i.e., M.C.No.6/2014 and M.C.No.7/2019. Those bind over cases are the off shoots of the criminal cases. He would submit that when the criminal cases themselves were ended in acquittal, no much importance can be attached to the bind over cases. He thus prayed to allow the writ petition.
6. In oppugnation, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home contended that the petitioner was involved in a number of criminal cases and though they were ended in acquittal, the petitioner constantly causing breach of peace and tranquillity in the limits of Rampachodavaram Police Station. Therefore, the two bind over cases were registered against him and pending. Taking totality of the circumstances and in order to maintain peace and harmony in the tribal villages, the rowdy sheet was opened in the year 2011 and same is being continued which is perfectly legal.
7. The point for consideration is whether the opening of rowdy sheet against the petitioner and its continuation are justifiable?
8. Point: It is interesting to know the jurisprudence on the impact of opening of a rowdy sheet, and its continuance on the fundamental rights of a person.
9
UDPR, J WP.No.2309 of 2020 (A) In Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department1, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of A.P. exhaustively dealt with the scope and amplitude of the history sheets/rowdy sheets. It was observed that in the composite state of Madras, Section 9 of the Madras District Police Act (Act 24 of 1859) empowered the Inspector General of Police to frame orders and regulations for general governance of the Police force and the collection and communication of intelligence and information. After formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, in 1956, Madras District Police Act was adopted by Andhra Adaptation Order, 1953 and accordingly, A.P. (Andhra Area) District Police Act, 1959 came into force along with the Police Standing Orders that were issued till 1954. These Police Standing Orders were held to be having no statutory force vide The State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venugopal2, it was observed that the Standing Order is nothing more than administrative instructions by the Government and has no force of law.
(i) Then, with regard to the impact of opening of history sheet/rowdy sheet on the personal liberty and right of privacy, learned Judge in Sunkara Satyanarayana (1 supra) has observed that as per Chapters 35 & 37 of the A.P. Police Code, surveillance has to be maintained by the Police against certain persons including those against whom history sheets have been opened and therefore, the persons against whom history sheet/rowdy sheet is opened are subject 1 2000(1) ALD (Cri)117 = MANU/AP/1027/1999 2 AIR 1964 SC 33 = MANU/SC/0074/1963 10 UDPR, J WP.No.2309 of 2020 to Police surveillance and as a part of it, Police may often restrict their movements by calling them to Police Station at all the times, detaining them as and when there is an information regarding likely disturbance in the town etc., and thereby those sheeters are not allowed to move freely in the city or town or leave the town without permission. After considering several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, learned Judge ultimately held that maintenance of history sheet/rowdy sheet for a long time violates not only right to privacy under Article 21 but also other fundamental rights under Articles 14 & 19 of the Constitution of India.
(ii) Then on the crucial question as to whether the competent police officer is obligated to record reasons for extension or retention of the history sheet/rowdy sheet, learned Judge in Sunkara Satyanarayana (1 supra) has held that in view of the employment of the word "consider" in PSO No.735(2), concerned officer is obligated to exercise due application of mind and record reasons for his decision. If an action is taken without reasons, it was observed, it results in unfairness and arbitrariness. Learned Judge ultimately held thus:
"78. The Police Officer empowered to extend retention of the history sheet or rowdy sheet has to record reasons which are rational by exercising sound discretion and consider the relevant facts mentioned in PSOs 733, 734, 735 and 742. Automatic endorsement to retain the history sheet would be ex facie illegal and unconstitutional."
(iii) In summing up his conclusions learned Judge observed:- 11
UDPR, J WP.No.2309 of 2020
(a) The scope and extent of surveillance against the history sheeter/rowdy sheeter is only to watch his movements which can only be unobtrusive and non-invasive surveillance. However, obtrusive surveillance makes serious inroads into his life and liberty which is liable to be declared as unconstitutional.
(b) While passing orders for retention of history sheet the competent SDPO has to take into consideration various factors, to wit, surveillance reports, crime history with reference to the breach of peace of society during the preceding year, social and political background of the person etc. If no adverse circumstances came to his notice and the sheeter leads a blemishless family life, it is the strong circumstance to order for closure of the history sheet/rowdy sheet.
(c) If retention is ordered by the competent police officer by a single line order simply endorsing retention without supported by reasons, that itself cannot be a ground to continue the rowdy sheet.
(iv) Applying the above conclusions to the case on hand, learned Judge found that the concerned SDPO only passed one sentence order viz., "sheet may be retained upto 31.12.1999" and held that he has not applied mind while passing orders from 01.01.1989 onwards and ultimately allowed the writ petition and directed to close the history sheet.
(B) In Dhanji Ram Sharma v. Superintendent of Police, North District, Delhi Police3, the Apex Court explained the term 3 AIR 1966 SC 1766 12 UDPR, J WP.No.2309 of 2020 'reasonable belief' which means belief based on reasonable grounds.
It was held thus:
"2. A habitual offender or a person habitually addicted to crime is one who is a criminal by habit or by disposition formed by repetition of crimes. Reasonable belief of the police officer that the suspect is a habitual offender or is a person habitually addicted to crime is sufficient to justify action under Rules 23.4(3)(b) and 23.9(2). Mere belief is not sufficient. The belief must be reasonable, it must be based on reasonable grounds. The suspect may or may not have been convicted of any crime. Even apart from any conviction, there may be reasonable grounds for believing that he is a habitual offender."
(C) In Kamma Bapuji v. Station House Officer, Brahamasamudram4 his lordship B.Sudershan Reddy of the High Court of A.P. (as he was then) while emphasising that opening of a rowdy sheet intrudes with the personal liberty of the sheeter through surveillance, exhorted that rowdy sheets cannot be opened against any individual in a casual and mechanical manner but due care and caution is required to be taken by the police officer before characterizing a person as a rowdy.
(D) In Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police5, a Division Bench of the High Court of A.P. while endorsing the views in Kamma Bapuji (4 supra), further observed that the important element that has to be seen in the acts of offender is whether the acts so committed by a person will have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquillity.
4 1998 (Cri L J) 1888 = MANU/AP/0149/1997 5 MANU/AP/0999/1998 = 1998 (3) ALT 55 13 UDPR, J WP.No.2309 of 2020 (E) In M.Malla Reddy v. The State of Telangana6, a learned single Judge of the common High Court observed that a rowdy sheet cannot be opened in a mechanical, routine and cavalier manner and great care, caution and circumspection are required to be observed as the same undoubtedly touches the personal liberty of the citizens and have considerable impact on the fundamental rights. The authorities functioning under the laws made by the Parliament and State legislatures have the holy and sacred obligation to discharge their duties keeping in view the object and intention behind those laws and any deviation or breach, render their actions invalid and void.
With the above jurimetrical jurisprudence, the present A.P. Police Manual and action initiated thereunder by the respondent authorities have to be scrutinized.
9. The Government of Andhra Pradesh have, vide G.O.Ms.No.19, Home (Legal-II) Department dated 14.02.2017 revised the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual as submitted by the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh. In the present Police Manual as well as in the previous Police Manual, we will find three occasions where the Police maintain the history sheets. Such instances are covered by Standing Order Nos.596, 600 & 601.
10. As per Standing Order No.596, history sheets shall be opened automatically by a Station House Officer after obtaining permission of 6 MANU/AP/0404/2015 = 2016 (1) ALD (Crl.) 591 (AP) 14 UDPR, J WP.No.2309 of 2020 the concerned SDPO in respect of the persons who are convicted for the list of offences mentioned in the said Standing Order and shall maintain such history sheet for two years after release of the convict from jail. As per Standing Order No.597, surveillance can be made against the history sheeted person so as to prevent the commission of cognizable crime vide Section 149 Cr.P.C. Under Standing Order No.599, if continuation of history sheet is necessary after two years, the same can be done on the orders of SDPO.
11. Then, under Standing Order No.600, history sheet can be opened against the persons who are either convicted or involved in the offences mentioned in the list of said Standing Order. The Standing Order No.600(2) tells that history sheets under this Standing Order should be opened only for persons who are likely to turn out to be habitual criminals or who are members of organized crime syndicates who had history or plan for violence and thus require close surveillance.
12. Then comes, Standing Order No.601, which reads thus:
601. The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 80) may be opened for them under the orders of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO.
Sl. No. Classification of Persons 1 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, besides offences under chapter VIII, XV, XVII, XVIII and XXII of IPC 2 Persons bound over u/s 106, 107, 108 (1)(i) and 110 (e) and (g) of Cr.P.C.15
UDPR, J WP.No.2309 of 2020 3 Persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years or under section 3, clause 12, of the AP Towns Nuisances Act, 1889 4 Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks, including offences u/s 354A, B, C & 354 D IPC 5 Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offence of Rape (376, 376 A, C, D, E). (Entry to be made in Sex Offenders Register also). 6 Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offences of POCSO Act, 2012 and Acid attacks (326A and 326B of IPC) 7 Rowdy sheets for the rowdies residing in one Police Station area but found frequenting the other PSs area, can be maintained at all such Police Stations.
8 Persons who intimidate by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means to part with movable or immovable properties or in the habit of collecting money by extortion from shopkeepers, traders and other residents including 'loan sharks' 9 Persons who incite, instigate and participate in communal/caste or political riots.
10 Persons detained under the "AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986" or other Preventive Detention laws for a period of 6 months or more.
11 Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of assault on public servants, under Arms Act and such other offences punishable with imprisonment of 2 years or more.
12 Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of Murder and attempt to murder (302 and 307 of IPC).
13 Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of Chain snatching.
14 Persons who are convicted under the Representation of People Act, 1951 for rigging, carrying away, damaging ballot paper, boxes and polling material.
13. Then, Standing Order No.602 lays down the conditions under which History Sheets of the suspects and rowdies can be continued. It reads thus:
Period of retention of History Sheets of Suspects/Rowdies:-
"602-1. History Sheets of suspects shall be maintained from the date of registration up to the end of December, after which the orders of a SDPO as to 16 UDPR, J WP.No.2309 of 2020 their discontinuance or retention for a further period shall be obtained.
2. Merely because a suspect/rowdy, having a history sheet, is not figuring as accused in the previous 5 years after the last case in which he was involved, it should not preclude the SP/DCP/CP to continue his history sheet if SP/DCP/CP is of the considered view that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or one affecting peace and tranquillity in the area or the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him."
Thus, History Sheet of a rowdy can be continued
(i) if his activates are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquillity in the area.
(ii) The victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him.
14. Standing Order Nos.601 & 602 are germane for our case. As can be seen from them, opening of rowdy sheet and its continuation are two different concepts and they are guided by different parameters as laid down in the respective Standing Orders. Therefore, it has now to be seen whether both sets of parameters have been fulfilled in this case or not.
15. Coming to the case on hand, admittedly rowdy sheet No.1/2011 was opened against petitioner on 20.08.2011. By then he was involved in (i) Cr.No.20/2011 (C.C.No.62/2011) (ii) Cr.No.41/2011 (PRC No.5/2011) (iii) Cr.No.53/2011 (C.C.No.220/2011) (iv) Cr.No.54/2011 (C.C.No.221/2011) and (v) Cr.No.100/2011 17 UDPR, J WP.No.2309 of 2020 (C.C.No.229/2011). It must be noted that during the year 2011-12 all the aforesaid cases were ended in acquittal. As per the Standing Order No.601(A) which was in vogue by 2011, it was not suffice that a person was involved in some criminal cases to open a rowdy sheet, but he must habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security (emphasis supplied). The respondents have not produced the material which weighed with the authorities to hold that the five cases in which the petitioner was involved by then had the tendency of causing breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security. Therefore, there is any amount of doubt as to whether the initial opening of rowdy sheet was bolstered by cogent material and reasoned order. Going by the ratio in some of the above judgments, it is clear that rowdy sheets cannot be opened in a mechanical, routine and cavalier manner without applying caution and circumspection followed by reasons.
(a) Be that it may, continuation of rowdy sheet is concerned, even though all the criminal cases were ended in acquittal even by February 2012 and petitioner was not involved in any other criminal cases except the bind over case i.e., M.C.No.6/2014 (Cr.No.23/2014), still the rowdy sheet has been continued. The respondents have not produced any material before this Court to show what has prompted the authorities to continue the rowdy sheet between 2012 and 2014. So far as continuation of rowdy sheet from 2014 till date is concerned, 18 UDPR, J WP.No.2309 of 2020 the petitioner produced the copies of extension orders for the years 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 issued by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Rampachodavaram. These orders which are identical would show that on the request for extension made by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Rampachodavaram P.S., the recommendation was made by the Inspector of Police and extension order was passed by the Assistant Superintendent of Police. They read thus:
I submit that the Rowdy sheet holder is very active, his movement should be watched very closely. Hence my kind officer may issue orders to retain for one year up to 31.12.2019.
Sd/- xx xxx 31.12.2018 Sub Inspector of Police, Rampachodavaram P.S., Sir, Submitted and forward, the above holder young and active. His movement are need to close watch for one more year is necessary. Hence order may be issue to retain his sheet up to 31.12.2019.
Sd/- xx xxx 31.12.2018 Inspector of Police, Rampachodavaram Permitted for one year up to 31.12.2019 Sd/- xx xxx Asst. Supdt. of Police, Rampachodavarm, E.G.Dist.
(b) It should be noted that except the two bind over cases no other cases are pending against the petitioner and in the above orders it is not made clear how grave they are and their propensity to cause breach of peace and disturbance to the public order and security. As per the Standing Order No.602(2), the history sheet of a suspect/rowdy can be continued if SP/DCP/CP is of the considered 19 UDPR, J WP.No.2309 of 2020 view that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or one affecting peace and tranquillity in the area or the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him. Unfortunately in the above orders of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, none of the grounds was even insinuatingly mentioned justifying the extension of rowdy sheet from year to year. The permission was granted by a short shrift. In Sunkara Satyanarayana (1 supra) also, when the SDPO, Gudivada wrote a similar order stating that "Sheet may be retained upto 31.12.1999", the High Court condemned the same and observed that the concerned Officer has not at all applied mind while passing the order. The present case is one such instance. Running the risk of repetition, it is made clear that the orders of public servants which have the far reaching effect on the life, liberty, property and welfare of the public must be based on cogent reasons. The proverb "brevity is the soul of wit" may suit to poets but not to responsible public servants. As can be seen from the representation dated 12.05.2014 of the petitioner to the District Collector & Assistant Superintendent of Police, his grievance is that by dint of rowdy sheet, he was frequently called to the police station and detained which causes fear and embarrassment to him and his family members. Since such acts amount to obstructive surveillance and as there are no cogent reasons for continuation of rowdy sheet, I deem it a fit case to allow the writ petition.
20
UDPR, J WP.No.2309 of 2020
16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and there shall be a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein and their subordinates to close the Rowdy Sheet No.1/2011 opened against the petitioner and there shall be no surveillance against the petitioner. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Registry shall forward a copy of this order to Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh to communicate to the Superintendents of Police in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 06.10.2020 Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.
MVA / MS