Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition challenges the action of the second respondent herein in indicating the petitioner's name as a rowdy sheeter in a Press Note dated 27-2-2000 published in Urdu Daily newspapers on 27-2-2000.

2. The petitioner claims to be a respectable citizen of Hyderabad city. For some time he was the Chief Editor of Urdu Weekly 'Aaj Aur Kal'. It is stated that he was associated with more than one political party in the State of Andhra Pradesh. He is the founder General Secretary of "Sarhadi-Gandhi-International Socio-economic and Educational Society". He is aggrieved by the action of the second respondent herein in issuing the Press Note characterizing the petitioner as a rowdy sheeter. The press note was published in all leading Urdu Dailies on 27-2-2000. The news item reads as "Search of 24 absconded rowdy sheeters from old city. Announcement of award for the informants: Absconded underground 165 rowdy sheeters." The petitioner's name is mentioned along with many other alleged rowdy sheeters.

7. It is difficult to discern as to what exactly the respondents intend to state in the matter as their defence. It is painful to notice the deteriorating standards in drafting the pleadings. The counter-affidavit practically does not make and reveal any sense. It is shocking to realise that the respondents' attitude towards the cherished guaranteed liberty of the citizens.

8. Admittedly only one case was registered against the petitioner herein in the year 1984 and the same has ended in acquittal in Crl.Rev. Petition No. 14 of 1986 dated 13th February, 1986 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The case itself was registered against the petitioner under Sections 452 and 332 I.P.C. on the file of the Mirchowk Police Station for allegedly assaulting a lecturer in Dharmavanth College, Yakutpura, Hyderabad. The petitioner, even according to the averments made in the counter-affidavit is not involved in any criminal case whatsoever after February 1984. There is no case registered against the petitioner during the last 15 years. Yet the respondents thought it fit to continue the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner in the year 1984. No rowdy sheet could have been opened against the petitioner in the year 1984 inasmuch as the petitioner could not have been characterized as a rowdy sheeter within the meaning of A.P. Police Standing Order No. 742. The petitioner cannot be characterized as a person who habitually commits, attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace. The petitioner was never bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(c) and 110(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He had never been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he is teasing women and girls by passing indecent remarks. Then for what reasons, the respondents thought it fit to open a rowdy sheet against the petitioner? The respondents have not only opened rowdy sheet against the petitioner in the year 1984, but also continued the same till to-day. This Court in Mohammed Quadeer v. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, held that the rowdy sheet once opened cannot be retained in a casual and routine manner. It is observed by this Court that the 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. It is observed that "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 at least 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 sheet. 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".

9. There is absolutely no material whatsoever in the instant case for continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. In fact the opening of rowdy sheet against the petitioner itself is an ultra vires act on the part of the respondents. Only one crime was registered against the petitioner in the year 1984 which had ultimately resulted in acquittal. By no stretch of imagination, the petitioner could be characterized as a rowdy sheeter. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the petitioner's right to reputation is adversely affected by the action of the respondents in issuing press note naming the petitioner as a rowdy and announcing an award to the informants on revealing the whereabouts of the petitioner. 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.

11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Let a Writ of Mandamus be issued declaring the action of the respondents in issuing press note dated 27-2-2000 indicating the name of the petitioner, as a rowdy sheeter is arbitrary and illegal and without any authority of law. Consequently the respondents are directed to issue a revised Press Note so as to be published in the same prominent manner in the very same newspapers in which the earlier notification dated 27-2-2000 was published duly notifying that the petitioner is not a rowdy and his presence is not required by the Police for whatsoever purposes. The Press Note shall be issued by the respondents forthwith. The petitioner is entitled for costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.