V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a resident of Sabernagar, Asifnagar, Hyderabad. He is working as casual driver in Telephone department A case being Crime No. 67 of 1990 of Police Station, Tappachabutra was registered against the petitioner and others under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC ). The case went in for sessions trial in s. C. No. 449 of 1991 and the Court of IV additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, hyderabad, by judgment dated 6-11-1992 acquitted the petitioner. ( 2 ) WHEN a crime was registered against the petitioner in 1990, the third respondent opened rowdy sheet against the petitioner under Police Standing Order 742. Since then the same is being continued. The petitioner states that he is not habitual offender and therefore continuing rowdy sheet permanently is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He also states that he has now shifted his house from Tappachabutra to Asifnagar area, the rowdy-sheet has been transferred from Tappachabutra Police Station to Asifnagar Police Station, the fourth respondent herein. He prayed this Court to issue mandamus directing the respondents to close the rowdy sheet. ( 3 ) THE fourth respondent has filed counter-affidavit stating that the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner is being maintained and continued in accordance with police Standing Orders after obtaining orders of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, i. e. , assistant Commissioner of Police, Asifnagar. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent it is stated as under: i submit that in respect of rowdy-sheets, the superior police officers are examining the cases of innumerable rowdies of the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad every year even without any written representations and ordering for closure of sheets in respect of deserving individuals. In the instant case nothing prevented the writ petitioner in representing to the superior as above in case it is true that he is called to the Police Station, or the Police are visiting his house in odd hours. Instead of submitting any representation for consideration the writ petitioner sought the intervention of the hon ble High Court. In this connection, i also submit that the writ petitioner submitted one representation on 2-1-2001 to the first respondent i. e. , D. C. P. . Instead of submitting any representation for consideration the writ petitioner sought the intervention of the hon ble High Court. In this connection, i also submit that the writ petitioner submitted one representation on 2-1-2001 to the first respondent i. e. , D. C. P. . West Zone seeking closure of his rowdy sheet on the ground that he is acquitted in the murder case and attending when called by concerned police or Task Force authorities and in this petition also he never complained of visit of Police to his house in odd hours. ( 4 ) THIS Court directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home to produce the rowdy sheet maintained at police Station, Asifnagar, by fourth respondent. The same has been produced. After perusing the rowdy-sheet it is found that the rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner on 25-3-1991 as per the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, asifnagar dated 18-3-1991. The orders were passed by the said Officer on a request made by the third respondent. It is alleged in the letter that the petitioner along with his associates indiscriminately stabbed to death an armed reserve Sub-Inspector, central Reserve Police Force and involved in the criminal case. Be that as it may, after opening rowdy sheet every year Inspector of Police has been obtaining orders in beginning of the year for extension of the rowdy sheet. By reason of maintaining the rowdy sheet the third respondent Police officials issued notice under Section 26 (7) of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 fasli, requiring the petitioner to report to police Station between 8. 00 a. m. and 9. 00 a. m. in morning and 8. 00 p. m. and 9. 00 p. m. in night. The petitioner was already directed to report about his movements during the intervening period. This only shows that the petitioner has, in fact, deprived of valuable right to privacy which is a penumbral right under Article 21 of the constitution of India which guarantees right to life and liberty. The rowdy sheet produced also discloses that there has had been constant surveillance on petitioner though admittedly he is a temporary employee of government of India in Telephone department. The rowdy sheet produced also discloses that there has had been constant surveillance on petitioner though admittedly he is a temporary employee of government of India in Telephone department. ( 5 ) ON 3-1-1997 the Inspector of Police, Tappachabutra addressed a letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, second respondent herein, which reads as under: with reference to the above cited subject, i submit that a Rowdy Sheet was opened against Mirza Nayeem Baig, S/o. M. Habeeb, age 22 years, R/o. H. No. 12-1-489/11, Ganje shaneedan as he was involved in Cr. No. 67/ 91 under Section 302 1pc added Section 3 of T. A. D. A. Act, 1985 of P. S. Tappachabutra. This case was acquitted from IV Addl. M. S. J. Hyderabad vide SC. No. 449/91. Further, he has not involved in any case since 1994. The said Rowdy Sheeter is working as a casual Driver (Maintenance) in Telephone bhavan at Saifabad and maintaining good record and no complaints received against him. At present there is no need to continue this rowdy Sheet of the said rowdy. Therefore, it is requested may kindly pass orders to close the Rowdy Sheet. Watch is being continued over the activities of Mirza nayeem Baig and whenever he came in adverse notice his sheet will be reopened. Submitted for favour of information and orders, (emphasis supplied) ( 6 ) THE Inspector of Police, who is under the Standing Orders is required to report to the second respondent and obtain orders for continuing rowdy sheet clearly opined that there is no need to continue the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. The third respondent also sought orders from the second respondent to close the rowdy sheet. On the said letter, the second respondent mechanically endorsed "continue till 31-12-1997". This shows total non- application of mind. The second respondent presumably has not even read the contents of the letter dated 3-1-1997 (which is now made part of the record) addressed by the fourth respondent seeking permission to close rowdy sheet. ( 7 ) THIS Court in S. Satyanarayana v. State of A. P. , 1999 (6) ALT 249, considered various questions in relation to opening/ continuing of rowdy sheets/history sheets and laid down certain principles. The principles laid down in S. Satyanarayana s case (supra) which were followed by a division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal no. 627 of 2001 dated 26. 4. The principles laid down in S. Satyanarayana s case (supra) which were followed by a division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal no. 627 of 2001 dated 26. 4. 2001, are as under. (I) A mere conviction or convictions cannot be thumb rule for opening history sheet or rowdy sheet though history sheet can be opened even without conviction for the limited purpose of watching a person discreetly. (II) At the time of opening a history sheet or rowdy sheet a competent officer has to apply mind taking into consideration the social background the proceedings in the criminal trial if a person is convicted and all other relevant material before passing orders for opening history sheet or rowdy sheet. (III) A history sheet/rowdy sheet is retained for the period of two years only unless it is ordered to be closed by the superintendent of Police earlier than two years. During the initial period of two years, the history sheeter or rowdy sheeter is entitled to request the concerned police officer to close the history sheet or rowdy sheet which has to be considered by the police officer in an objective manner. (IV) While passing orders for retention of history sheet for another year more, the competent Sub-Divisional Police Officer has to take into consideration the various factors, to wit, surveillance reports, the crime history with reference to the breach of peace of society dining the preceding year, the social and political background of the person etc. If there is a preponderance of opinion among the surveillance officers that the person did not come up for any adverse notice and leading a blemishless family life it is a strong circumstance to order for closure of the history sheet or rowdy sheet. (V) When an order is passed by the competent police officer for retention of the history sheet by simply endorsing on the report/ letter of the S. H. O. a single line order, that by itself cannot be a ground to continue the rowdy sheet. (VI) Any order passed by the Sub-Divisional police Officer shall have to be supported by reasons. The reasons need not be communicated but to be recorded. (VII) The orders for opening or retention of history sheet/rowdy sheet are passed under the administrative instructions/ guidelines. If such an order is challenged. (VI) Any order passed by the Sub-Divisional police Officer shall have to be supported by reasons. The reasons need not be communicated but to be recorded. (VII) The orders for opening or retention of history sheet/rowdy sheet are passed under the administrative instructions/ guidelines. If such an order is challenged. The competent authority has to place the reasons before the Court which justify retention of history sheet/rowdy sheet. Further, it is always better for the Police Officer to record his own reasons for retention/opening of the history sheet/rowdy sheet. (VIII) In the event as mentioned in conclusion 4. 7 it is always open to the Court of judicial review to direct the Sub- divisional Police Officer to reconsider his decision and pass appropriate orders. But whatever be the events in the guise of opening/retention of history sheet a person s liberty, right to privacy and other freedoms under article 19 of the Constitution of India cannot be infringed under any circumstances. (IX) It is to be remembered that any order of the competent police officer which is not supported by reasons is itself unreasonable and arbitrary and can be termed as mala fide in the sense that it is contrary to the purpose for which the Police Officer is authorised under relevant Police Standing orders. Hence, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the order of the Sub- divisional Police Officer is contrary to the purpose for which surveillance is authorised, the action shall be set at naught forthwith on the principle that what is unreasonable and unfair is arbitrary and such arbitrary exercise of power amounts to exercising, the power mala fide. ( 8 ) THIS Court also said that whenever a right to privacy under Article 21 of the constitution of India is violated, which amounts to violation of human rights, it is open to the citizen (i) to seek remedies by way of proceedings under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India for judicial review on police action; (ii) to initiate criminal action against the respondents subject to provisions of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (iii) to seek damages in tort by filing civil suits; and (iv) to seek appropriate decision in public law jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. Be it noted that as held by the supreme Court in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960 , and D. K. Basil v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610 , public law remedy for compensation for violation of fundamental rights and human rights is without prejudice to any other action like civil suit for damages and that the public law remedy is in addition to the traditional remedies and not in derogation of them. ( 9 ) IN view of the settled principles, the writ petition has to be allowed and is accordingly allowed with costs. A mandamus shall issue directing the respondents (i) to forthwith close the rowdy sheet in relation to the petitioner; (ii) to pay compensation of rs. 10,000/- jointly and severally within a period of four weeks and (iii) to pay costs of writ petition in a sum of Rs. 1,000/ -.