Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties concerned. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents, to remove the petitioner’s name from the History Sheet (Rowdy S.No.1/2008), on the file of the third respondent and to pass such further orders, as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner is living, along with his family members, in a permanent address, at Red Hills, Chennai. He is carrying on transport business for his livelihood. He is paying income tax to the Income Tax Department. While so, a petty quarrel had taken place, on 8.2.2006, in connection with the election of the trustees of the temple, at Padiyanallur village. Following the said incident, a complaint had been lodged against five persons and the petitioner had been implicated as one of the accused persons, on suspicion. The said case has been registered, by the third respondent, in Crime No.61 of 2006, and it is pending trial. 4. It has been further stated that a group of persons, belonging to the rival group, had instigated the Police officials to register a case against the petitioner. Hence, two cases, in Crime Nos.585 and 588 of 2008, had been registered against the petitioner. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner had been changed, as Milagaipodi venkatesan. The said cases are still pending and the petitioner had not been convicted after finding him guilty of the offences alleged. Thereafter, on 19.2.2009, another case had been registered against the petitioner, in Crime No.87 of 2009, on the instigation of one Raju, stating that he had been threatened by the petitioner, with dire consequences. As such, the name of the petitioner had been kept in the history sheet, as a rowdy, from the year, 2008 onwards, by the third respondent Police. 5. It has been further stated that, as per the Police Standing Order 746, the Police had the power to open the history sheet, in respect of the persons, who are known or believed to be addicted to or to aid or abet the commission of crime, whether convicted or not, or who are believed to be habitual receivers. 5. It has been further stated that, as per the Police Standing Order 746, the Police had the power to open the history sheet, in respect of the persons, who are known or believed to be addicted to or to aid or abet the commission of crime, whether convicted or not, or who are believed to be habitual receivers. As such, it is clear that the maintaining of the person’s name in the history sheet, as a rowdy, cannot be a mechanical process, based on the whims and fancies of the Police authorities. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner has been kept in the history sheet, as a rowdy, from the year 2008, without having proper and sufficient reasons for doing so. 7. He had further submitted that the third respondent has not deleted the name of the petitioner from the history sheet, due to undue influence exerted by the rival groups in the locality concerned. The history sheet has not been reviewed, periodically, as per the Police Standing Orders. Entries had been made in the files of the third respondent Police, mechanically, without proper application of mind. 8. Even though some cases are pending against the petitioner, the charges levelled against the petitioner are not the serious in nature. Further, there have been no adverse entries against the petitioner, from the year, 2008, upto the year, 2011. 9. It has been further stated that the files maintained by the third respondent Police, relating to the petitioner, ought to have been reviewed, periodically, by the higher authority, who is authorised to pass an order to continue the name of the person in the history sheet. However, such an exercise should be undertaken only after a proper appreciation of the relevant records and the field realities. Therefore, the continuance of the name of the petitioner in the history sheet, by the third respondent, is arbitrary, illegal and void. 10. He had relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, in SELVARAJ @ KUNJU KRISHINAN Vs. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND OTHERS to state that a periodical inspection of the files should be made, by the police authorities concerned, for retaining the name of the persons in the history sheet. 10. He had relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, in SELVARAJ @ KUNJU KRISHINAN Vs. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND OTHERS to state that a periodical inspection of the files should be made, by the police authorities concerned, for retaining the name of the persons in the history sheet. Further, if the name of the person is to be retained in the history sheet, for over two years, it should be authorised by a higher authority. It had also been held that, when any favourable information is available relating to a person, whose name is found in the history sheet, such information should also be entered in the relevant files, for future consideration. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had prayed that this Court may direct the third respondent to delete the name of the petitioner from the history sheet maintained by the third respondent Police, from the year, 2008. 11. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent stating that the petitioner had been involved in the occurrence that had taken place, on 8.2.2006, which had been registered as a case, in Crime No.61 of 2006, on the file of the M-4, Red Hills Police Station. The name of the petitioner had been included in the history sheet, as he was found to be very aggressive and violent. In such circumstances, a history sheet has been opened against the petitioner, on 10.10.2008. Even thereafter, his aggressive behaviour had not reduced. Instead, the petitioner had committed a subsequent offence, registered in Crime No.87 of 2009, on the file of the said Police Station. Even thereafter, the petitioner had been involved in a number of cases, by committing many offences. As such, the name of the petitioner may not be deleted from the history sheet, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender, with several cases pending against him. Further, the Police authority concerned had been reviewing the case of the petitioner, periodically. However, sufficient reasons or grounds were not available for deleting the name of the petitioner from the rowdy list. 13. It had also been stated that the authority concerned had granted sufficient time to the petitioner, to improve himself. However, the petitioner kept committing several offences, periodically. However, sufficient reasons or grounds were not available for deleting the name of the petitioner from the rowdy list. 13. It had also been stated that the authority concerned had granted sufficient time to the petitioner, to improve himself. However, the petitioner kept committing several offences, periodically. Further, the files relating to the petitioner had been verified, on a regular basis, as per the relevant provisions of the Police Standing Orders. Further, the higher authority concerned had also reviewed the file relating to the petitioner. Therefore, there is no scope for deleting the name of the petitioner, from the rowdy list, as prayed for by him, in the present writ petition. 14. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available and in view of the decision cited supra, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the first respondent, to consider the case of the petitioner, and to decide as to whether the name of the petitioner ought to be retained in the history sheet maintained by the third respondent. It is for the Commissioner of Police, the first respondent herein, to verify and to pass appropriate orders on the request of the petitioner, for deleting his name from the rowdy list, in view of the relevant provisions of the Police Standing Orders. 15. The first respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner, based on the records available with the third respondent and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.