P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE Writ Petition is filed for a writ, order or direction more in the nature of mandamus declaring the rowdy-sheet proceedings launched and continued by the respondents-authorities as illegal and unconstitutional and for a consequential direction to remove the petitioner s name from the Rowdy Sheet Register and to pass appropriate orders. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he is a law abiding citizen and a businessman running business in fancy article s and jewellery under the name and style of sri Fancy and Ladies Corner at peddapuram, commanding good reputation in the society. It was also stated that one m. V. Chandrasekhar of Peddapuram village filed private complaint before the Judicial first Class Magistrate, Peddapuram against 3rd respondent - Station House Officer, peddapuram Police Station under sections 379, 380 and 352 IPC and the same was referred to Circle Inspector, peddapuram for investigation and the circle Inspector is investigating the case in cr. No. 200/2000 and no charge-sheet is filed hitherto. It is also stated that the petitioner is only an eye-witness and hence being instigated by unsocial elements the 3rd respondent - Station House Officer, peddapuram foisted a criminal case in cr. No. 175/2000 under Sections 354 and 447 ipc against the petitioner and the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry in crl. M. P. No. 1666/2000 dated 3-11-2000 in cr. No. 175/2000. It is also stated that since the petitioner is an eye-witness in cr. No. 200/2000, his name was entered in the rowdy-sheet illegally 20 days back and from the said time onwards, the 3rd respondent has been making the writ petitioner to sit in Police Station during his business hours without any reason restricting his free movements. It is also specifically stated that invading the personal liberty of the petitioner under the guise of surveillance by detaining him in the police Station and disturbing his day-to-day business and calling him to Police Station at odd hours of night is ultra vires the constitution of India, especially Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also specifically stated that invading the personal liberty of the petitioner under the guise of surveillance by detaining him in the police Station and disturbing his day-to-day business and calling him to Police Station at odd hours of night is ultra vires the constitution of India, especially Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was further stated that none of the conditions contemplated by Standing Order 742 of A. P. Police Standing Orders are fulfilled in the present case and the inclusion of the name of the petitioner as a rowdy sheeter in the rowdy-sheet is in violation of the Standing order 742 of the A. P. Police Standing orders. ( 3 ) THE 3rd respondent filed a counter- affidavit in detail. It is stated that the petitioner is indulging in illegal activities and in fact Sri Fancy and Ladies Corner at peddapuram, East Godavari District is a big trap place to create prostitution in peddapuram village. It is also stated that sri M. V. Chandrasekhar is a close associate and illegal business partner of the petitioner and he filed a false case before the Judicial first Class Magistrate, Peddapuram and the same was forwarded to Inspector of Police, peddapuram for investigation and the same was referred as false and also observed that it is a counterblast to demoralize the investigation in Cr. No. 175/2000. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent is no way concerned with the criminal case filed by one Sri M. V. Chandrasekhar in which the petitioner allegedly incorporated himself as a witness. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent is a District Officer having his office and establishment at Kakinada, but without knowing anything and without acquainted with the facts, the address was shown as the D. S. P. Peddapuram which is false and baseless. It is further stated that the rowdy-sheet was opened after obtaining full and correct antecedents on 1-12-2000 as per the orders of the Sub-Divisional Police officer, Peddapuram dated 22-11-2000. All the other allegations also had been specifically denied. It is also stated that the g. D. entries and the oral statements of the convicted prostitutes clearly support the contents of the Standing Order 736 (b) "persons not convicted but believed to be addicted to crime". All the other allegations also had been specifically denied. It is also stated that the g. D. entries and the oral statements of the convicted prostitutes clearly support the contents of the Standing Order 736 (b) "persons not convicted but believed to be addicted to crime". It is further stated that standing Order 742 also is attracted and the name of the writ petitioner was included after observing all the legal formalities in accordance with the provisions of law and in accordance with the A. P. Police Standing orders without any ulterior motive and it is also specifically stated that the writ petitioner who is a supplier of ladies by engaging them to achieve unlawful gain, has been indulging in illegal activities and hence to keep surveillance over the activities of the petitioner, the rowdy-sheet has to be maintained. It is also stated that this measure is taken to prevent prostitution and also to save the humanity from the clutches of incurable and dangerous diseases like aids so as to save Peddapuram village, the state of Andhra Pradesh and in the interests of public at large. ( 4 ) A reply also was filed denying the allegations made in the counter-affidavit and also reiterating the stand taken by the writ petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. ( 5 ) NOW the short question which falls for consideration in the present Writ Petition is whether inclusion of the name of the writ petitioner in the rowdy-sheet is sustainable in law. ( 6 ) SRI P. V. Vidyasagar, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner had taken me through both Standing Orders 736 and 742 of the A. P. Police Standing Orders and had contended that none of the conditions specified therein had been satisfied and hence the inclusion of the name of the writ petitioner in the rowdy-sheet is not only illegal, but also unconstitutional, being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of india. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that under the guise of surveillance the police are interfering with the day-to-day activities, including the business and making the life of the writ petitioner miserable. It was further contended that rowdy-sheet cannot be opened against any individual in a casual or a mechanical manner unless the conditions specified in standing Order 742 of A. P. Police Standing orders, dealing with Rowdies, are satisfied. It was further contended that rowdy-sheet cannot be opened against any individual in a casual or a mechanical manner unless the conditions specified in standing Order 742 of A. P. Police Standing orders, dealing with Rowdies, are satisfied. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on Puttagunta Pasi alias Penta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada and another in this regard. ( 7 ) SRI Srimannarayana, the learned assistant Government Pleader for Home had vehemently contended that there are no mala fides on the part of the respondents in opening the rowdy-sheet as against the writ petitioner and it is only in public interest. The learned Counsel also had pointed out when the illegal activities of the writ petitioner are being checked by the Police, the writ petitioner had resorted to the acts which had been clearly specified in the counter-affidavit. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to both Standing orders 736 and 742 of the A. P. Police standing Orders and had contended that the public interest will suffer if a direction as prayed for by the writ petitioner is issued by the Court and at the best in case the court feels that sufficient material is not available, the concerned authorities may be given liberty to renew (sic. review) the decision in this regard taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration. ( 8 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the respective pleadings of the parties and the material available on record. It is fairly accepted even by the learned Assistant government Pleader that the present case does not fall under Standing Order 736 of the A. P. Police Standing Orders. ( 8 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the respective pleadings of the parties and the material available on record. It is fairly accepted even by the learned Assistant government Pleader that the present case does not fall under Standing Order 736 of the A. P. Police Standing Orders. Standing order 742 of the A. P. Police Standing orders, dealing with Rowdies, reads as follows: (1) The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy sheets (Form 88) may be opened for them under the order of the superintendent of Police or Sub- divisional Officer: (A) persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offences involving a breach of the peace; (B) persons bound over under sections 106, 107, 108 (c) and 110 (1) of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974); (C) persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under section 75 of the Madras City police Act or under Section 3, clause 12 of the Towns nuisances Act; (D) persons who habitually tease women and girls by passing indecent remarks or otherwise; and (E) in the case of rowdies residing in an area under one Police station but are found to be frequently visiting the area under one or more other Police stations their rowdy-sheets can be maintained at all such Police stations. (2) Instructions in Order 735 regarding discontinuance of History sheets shall also apply to Rowdy Sheets. A careful reading of the provision clearly goes to show that none of the conditions specified in the said Order are satisfied in the present case. No doubt strong reliance is placed on Standing Order 742 (l) (d), which specifies "persons who habitually tease women and girls by passing indecent remarks or otherwise". However, there is no material placed in this regard. In the decision referred (supra), it was held that under Standing Order 742 of the A. P. Police standing Orders, the opening of a rowdy sheet in the case of habitual offenders can be relating to persons who habitually commit or abet commission of offences involving breach of peace and they must have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquility and the same cannot be opened in a mechanical manner. As can be seen from the record, except registering one crime i. e. , Crime No. 175/2000 there is no other allegation and it is needless to say that the criminal law which had been set in motion will take its own course. But here, the Court is concerned with the justifiability or otherwise of the opening of the rowdy sheet as against the petitioner. In the present case, not only that the conditions specified in Standing Order 742 of A. P. Police standing Orders are not at all satisfied, but apart from it, there is no material also to support the decision taken by the police to open a rowdy-sheet as against the writ petitioner. It is needless to say that it is not only contrary to the A. P. Police Standing order 742 but it is also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and arbitrary action which is not sustainable in law. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the Writ petition is allowed, however in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.