V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions seeking a direction to the respondents to remove their names from the rowdy sheets and not to interfere with their business of Bar and Restaurant. ( 2 ) THE short question to be decided in these Writ Petitions is, whether the inclusion of the name of the petitioners in rowdies list is justified? ( 3 ) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents at paragraph 4 it is stated that the rowdy sheets against the petitioners were opened on 14. 12. 1992 by the J. C. Nagar Police station on the orders of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer in exercise of the power under Order No. 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual. In paragraph 5 it is stated that before opening the rowdy sheets, the respondents have taken into consideration the conduct and behaviour of the petitioners and number of criminal cases in which they Were/ are involved. Annexure-R1 is produced furnishing the details of the cases registered against the petitioners. It is further stated that the petitioenrs are involved and are continuing in criminal activities. Thus, justifying the impugned action, the respondents have sought for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. ( 4 ) ORDER No. 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual defines "rowdy" in Clause (1) to mean of goonda and includes a hooligan, rough, vagabond or any person who is dangerous to the public peace and tranquility. Clause (2) of the said Order describes the forms of rowdyism as under:-"a) Passing indecent remarks to ladies and school and college girls; b) Intimidation of law abiding people by acts of violence or by show of force or by abusive language; c) Forcible collection of subscriptions; d) Taking sides in petty quarrels between landlords and tenants or between co-tenants and threatening people of the opposite party; e) Disorderly conduct; f) Rioting; and g) Snatching and robbery". From a reading of the statement of objections it is clear that the rowdy sheets were maintained against the petitioners on the order of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. The said order is not produced by the respondents. If the said order had been produced, the grounds on which the names of the petitioners have been entered in rowdies list could have been gathered. The said order is not produced by the respondents. If the said order had been produced, the grounds on which the names of the petitioners have been entered in rowdies list could have been gathered. In the absence of the same, the Court has to rely only upon what is stated in the objections statement. ( 5 ) THE only case sought to be made-out against the petitioners in the counter is that several criminal cases have been registered against the petitioners and they are involving in criminal activities. Though list of criminal cases registered against the petitioners was produced as Annexure-R1 in the first instance, after filing rejoinder to the objections statement, correct Annexures-R1 to R3 have been filed by the respondents. A perusal of the correct lists indicate that eventhough several criminal cases have been registered against the petitioners, most of them are ended either in acquittal or compromise and some of them have been closed. Some of them are still pending. However, majority of the cases are not pending and most of such disposed of cases ended in favour of the petitioners. ( 6 ) IT is to be noted that Order No. 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual do not empower the police to open rowdy sheets or any person against whom criminal cases are registered. Only on the grounds enumerated therein, which are extracted above in paragraph 4 of this order, rowdy sheet can be opened and names of persons involving in such activities may be entered in the rowdy list. In the instant case, none of the grounds enumerated in Order No. 1059 are forthcoming and those are hot the grounds upon which the names of the petitioners have been included in rowdies list. Therefore, the basis upon which their names have been entered in rowdies list, is not well-founded. In other words, the entry of names of the petitioners in rowdies sheet is baseless. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the fact that the petitioners have been either acquitted or exonerated in most of the criminal cases, the respondents were not justified in opening rowdy sheets against the petitioenrs. Mere registration of criminal cases cannot be used as a weapon to enter the name of a person in rowdy list. The rowdy sheets against the petitioners are not opened on any of the grounds enumerated in Order No. 1059 of the Manual. Mere registration of criminal cases cannot be used as a weapon to enter the name of a person in rowdy list. The rowdy sheets against the petitioners are not opened on any of the grounds enumerated in Order No. 1059 of the Manual. The decision of the division Bench of this Court in K. M. MUNISWAMY REDDY vs STATE of KARNATAKA relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, would be squarely applicable to these cases. ( 8 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, these Writ Petitions are allowed. Respondents are hereby directed to delete the names of the petitioners from the rowdies list. ( 9 ) THE second prayer sought in these Writ Petitions to direct the respondents not to interfere in the business of Bar and Restaurant cannot be granted. If there is any illegality committed in doing the said business, the police have got every right to put an end to the same. No specific interference in the business is alleged in the Writ petitions. Hence, the prayer is misconceived. --- *** --- .