JUDGMENT At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to close rowdy sheet No.293/Rowdy/2007, dated 31-03-2007, opened against the petitioner. The petitioner is a press reporter by profession. He was working in Vartha telugu daily newspaper. According to him, he wrote a news item against respondent No.3. The petitioner alleged that as an act of reprisal, respondent No.3 registered Crime No.13 of 2007 by falsely implicating him as accused No.2 therein on 07-02-2007 and later, opened a rowdy sheet against him on 31-03-2007 and the same was followed by registration of another Crime being Crime No.61 of 2007 on 18-06-2007 binding over the petitioner under Section 110 (e) of Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner, the action of respondent No.3 in opening a rowdy sheet is wholly vindictive and the same cannot be sustained in law. In the Counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that the above-mentioned two crimes have been registered against the petitioner. It is stated that Crime No.13 of 2007 was registered as the petitioner allegedly forged a house site patta document in the name of Dr.Y.S.Rajasekhar Reddy, the then Chief Minister of A.P., under Indiramma Pathakam and that during the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, and a charge sheet was filed later. With regard to Crime No.61 of 2007, it is stated that the petitioner was moving in the Mandal and giving an impression in the public that he was still continuing as a reporter of Vaartha newspaper and that he is collecting information and provoking the public by spreading false information against the Police and that apprehending breach of peace, the said Crime was registered against him under Section 110 (e) Cr.P.C. Under Standing Order No.601 of the A.P.Police Manual, 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: A. 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. B. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108 (1) (i) and 110 (e) (g) of Cr.P.C. C. Persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under Sections 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad City Police Act or under Section 3, Clause 12, of the A.P.Towns Nuisances Act. D. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks. E. Rowdy sheets for the rowdies residing in one Police Station but are found frequenting the other PSs area, can be maintained at all such Police Stations. F. 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. G. Persons who incite and instigate communal/caste or political riots. H. Persons detained under the “AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986” for a period of 6 months or more. I. Persons who are convicted for offences under the Representatives of the Peoples’ Act for rigging and carrying away ballot paper Boxes and other polling material. In Malak Singh vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1981 SC 760 ) the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the scope of Rule 23.4 of the Punjab Police Rules which empowered the Punjab Police to maintain a surveillance register against the persons, who are proclaimed and habitual offenders, previous convicts etc. Dealing with the said provision, the Supreme Court held: “Ordinarily the names of persons with previous criminal record alone are entered in the Surveillance Register. They must be proclaimed offenders previous convicts or persons who have already been placed on security for good behaviour. In addition, names of persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not may be entered. It is not in the case of this category of persons that there may be occasion for abuse of the power of the police officer to make entries in the surveillance register. But, here the entry can only be made by the order of Superintendent of Police who is prohibited from delegating his authority under rule 23.5. It is not in the case of this category of persons that there may be occasion for abuse of the power of the police officer to make entries in the surveillance register. But, here the entry can only be made by the order of Superintendent of Police who is prohibited from delegating his authority under rule 23.5. Further, it is necessary that the Superintendent of Police must entertain a reasonable belief that persons whose names are to be entered in Part II are habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property. While it may not be necessary to supply the grounds of belief to the persons whose names are entered in the Surveillance register it may become necessary in some cases to satisfy the Court when an entry is challenged that there are grounds to entertain such reasonable belief.” 1. In Puttagunta Pasi @ Penta Pasi vs. Commissioner of Police ( 1998 (3) ALT 55 ) a Division Bench of this Court, which considered the validity of opening of a rowdy sheet under Police Standing Order 742, inter alia held: “……….. it is clear that rowdy sheets cannot be opened against any individual in a casual and mechanical manner. Dubbing a person as an habitual offender and to open a rowdy sheet is not sufficient. On the other hand, due care and caution shall be taken by the police before characterising a person as a rowdy. The important element that has to be seen in the acts of an offender is whether the acts so committed by a person will have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquillity.” (Emphasis added) In Mohd. Quadeer vs. Commissioner of Police ( 1999 (2) ALT 733 ) a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the police authorities have to satisfy that there are grounds to entertain the reasonable belief about the criminal activities of the offender before opening of rowdy sheet against him. Quadeer vs. Commissioner of Police ( 1999 (2) ALT 733 ) a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the police authorities have to satisfy that there are grounds to entertain the reasonable belief about the criminal activities of the offender before opening of rowdy sheet against him. In Sunkara Satyanarayana vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department (1999 (6) ALT 249) a learned Single Judge of this Court, after an exhaustive consideration of the case law on the issue, deduced several legal principles and held that opening of history sheet/rowdy sheet can be justified only when it is proved before the Court by the State that based on the relevant material the competent police officer has applied his mind with due care and considered all aspects in the light of the law and then ordered opening of history sheet/rowdy sheet or its continuation or retention. Applying the above settled legal principles, the facts of the present case need to be examined. Crime No.13 of 2007 was registered against the petitioner on 07.02.2007. The said case was registered on the allegation that the petitioner indulged in forgery of a house site patta under Indiramma Housing Scheme. On 31.03.2007, respondent No.3 opened a rowdy sheet against the petitioner. It is an admitted position that except the abovementioned solitary criminal case, the petitioner was not found involved in any criminal case by the time of opening of the rowdy sheet. It is not the pleaded case of respondent No.3 that the petitioner has the history of habitually committing offences or that he was bound over on any earlier occasion for committing such offences. Surprisingly, Crime No.61 of 2007 was registered against the petitioner under Section 110 (e) Cr.P.C., in the nature of a bind over proceeding for a period of 6 months from 18.06.2007. This Court is at a loss to know as to on what basis the rowdy sheet was opened when none of the clauses of Standing Order 601 reproduced above were even remotely attracted warranting opening of a rowdy sheet against the petitioner. As if, to justify opening of such a rowdy sheet, bind over proceedings were initiated after opening the same. These facts would clearly suggest that obviously the wreak vengeance against the petitioner for his writing a news report against respondent No.3, as pleaded by him in his affidavit, the rowdy sheet was opened against him. As if, to justify opening of such a rowdy sheet, bind over proceedings were initiated after opening the same. These facts would clearly suggest that obviously the wreak vengeance against the petitioner for his writing a news report against respondent No.3, as pleaded by him in his affidavit, the rowdy sheet was opened against him. Though the petitioner has been described as a rowdy element in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, no details of his activities justifying such description have been given therein. In my opinion, respondent No.3 is wholly unjustified in opening the rowdy sheet against the petitioner on the basis of a single criminal case registered for the alleged offence of forgery of a house site patta. Opening of a rowdy sheet will undoubtedly have the effect of causing humiliation to the petitioner and bringing down his dignity and honour in the society. As held by the catena of judgments referred to above, such an action can be resorted to by the police only in the cases of habitual criminals and those, who attempt to commit or abet commission of offences involving breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security. The action of respondent No.3, in my considered opinion, is subversive of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees every person a right to live with human dignity. Therefore, opening rowdy sheet against the petitioner is wholly unwarranted and unconstitutional and the same is accordingly quashed. As malice in law is writ large in the action of respondent No.3 and for causing humiliation to the petitioner by opening a rowdy sheet, the respondents are saddled with costs of Rs.5,000/- payable to the petitioner, within a period of 4 weeks from today. If such costs are not paid, the petitioner is entitled to recover the same by taking recourse through due legal process. The costs shall be recovered by respondent No.1 from the salary of the officer, who opened the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.