Judgment : 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 2. This writ petition is filed, seeking declaration by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in opening and continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and in violation of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the case of petitioner that he is a resident of Bhansi Bazar, Charminar, Hyderabad and he hails from a respectable family. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that he was falsely implicated in Crime No.41 of 2011, which was registered on 04.02.2011 as one among the other 10 accused, who were charged for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 324, 323 r/w.149 of IPC and under Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act, 1959, on the file of P.S.Sultan Bazar. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of petitioner that by falsely implicating him in the said case, a rowdy sheet is opened against him illegally and arbitrarily. It is stated that the opening of rowdy sheet against him is against the Police Standing Orders. 3. Respondent No.5 has filed counter affidavit. In the counter, while denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner is a rowdy element and is involved in Crime No.41 of 2011 registered on the file of P.S.Sultan Bazar for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302, 324, 323 r/w.149 of IPC and under Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act, 1959. It is stated that after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 30th of July 2011 on the file of II-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally. It is stated that in view of involvement of petitioner in the aforesaid crime, after obtaining necessary permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sultan Bazar, a rowdy sheet is opened against the petitioner and is presently transferred to Charminar Police Station, as he is residing in the limits of Charminar P.S. In the counter, it is stated that as the petitioner is facing trial in the aforesaid criminal case, closing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner at this juncture will result in hardship to the general public, and to have a close watch on the movements of the petitioner, it is necessary to continue the rowdy sheet against him. 4. Though it was represented on last occasion by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that there was also a case registered against the petitioner, in Crime No.236 of 2011 on the file of P.S.Charminar, today, on instructions, it is submitted that the said crime is registered only for preventive arrest, and the petitioner was already enlarged on bond, and the case is also closed as action dropped on 22.11.2011 itself. 5. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, it is clear that the petitioner is not involved in any other crime except Crime No.41 of 2011. Opening and continuance of rowdy sheets is presently governed by Police Standing Order No.602-1. From a perusal of the said Standing Order, it is clear that rowdy sheets can be opened against the persons; who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving breach of peace, persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108 (ii) and 110(a) and (g) of Cr.P.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, persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks, 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, persons who incite and instigate communal/caste or political riots, etc. From a comprehensive reading of the contents of the aforesaid Standing Order, it is clear that merely on the allegation of involvement of petitioner in a single crime, respondents are not empowered to open a rowdy sheet. It is also a settled law that on the allegation of involvement of petitioner in a single crime, he cannot be termed as a habitual offender. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that opening and continuance of rowdy sheet against the petitioner is contrary to the aforesaid Standing Order. Even if the allegations made against the petitioner are taken as it is, his case will not fit into any of the categories mentioned under Standing Order No.602-1, and hence, the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner is fit to be quashed. Even if the allegations made against the petitioner are taken as it is, his case will not fit into any of the categories mentioned under Standing Order No.602-1, and hence, the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner is fit to be quashed. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner, which is presently maintained on the file of 3rd respondent, is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner involves in any further crimes, this will not preclude the respondents from opening a fresh rowdy sheet against him. No order as to costs.