Judgment :- 1. In this case, the petitioner has assailed the order at Annexure ‘C’ dated 4.4.2009 passed by the first respondent authorizing the Police Inspector, High Grounds Police Station to continue his name in the register of rowdies under Order Nos. 1059 and 1060 of Karnataka Police Manual, 1998 (‘Police Manual’ for short). 2. The petitioner contends that the Police Inspector, High Grounds Police Station, the third respondent herein and sought permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Seshadripuram Sub-Division Bangalore City, to include his name in the rowdy ‘B’ Register alleging that he had indulged in criminal activities. Consequent upon such request, the second respondent without application of mind and without considering the legitimacy of respondent No.3 in citing the cases and that had occurred outside his jurisdiction, passed an order permitting the third respondent to include his name in the rowdy ‘B’ Register. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in W.P. No. 14955/2008. This Court by order at Annexure ‘A’ dated 17.12.2008 directed him to file a representation before the second respondent seeking deletion of his name from the register. Feeling aggrieved, he filed an appeal in W.A. No. 314/2009 before the Division Bench of this Court, which was disposed of by directing him to submit the representation before the first respondent for deletion of his name from the register. Accordingly, he filed a representation before the first respondent stating that in order to settled personal scores, respondent No. 3 had antedated the entry of this name in the register. It was brought to his notice that many of the cases that were cited to include his name were registered outside his jurisdiction and that he was not a rowdy as set out in Order 1059 of the Police Manual. Nonetheless, respondent No.1 without considering any of the contentions urged has passed the impugned order by directing the third respondent to continue his named in the register of rowdies. 3. I have heard Sr. Ravi B. Naik, learned Senior Counsel and Sri Chinmay J. Mirji, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.T. Narendra Prasad, learned HCGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 4. Learned Advocates for the petitioner contend that the petitioner is not a rowdy as defined under Order 1059 of the Police Manual. 3. I have heard Sr. Ravi B. Naik, learned Senior Counsel and Sri Chinmay J. Mirji, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.T. Narendra Prasad, learned HCGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 4. Learned Advocates for the petitioner contend that the petitioner is not a rowdy as defined under Order 1059 of the Police Manual. It is argued that for the inclusion of a person in the rowdy sheet, he should be a goonda, or a hooligan, rough, vagabond or any person who is dangerous to the public peace and tranquility. The petitioner does not fit into any forms of rowdyism as described in clause (2) of Order 1059 of the Police Manual. The respondents have falsely implicated the petitioner in the cases referred to in the impugned order. It is argued that in order to settle personnel scores, respondent No.3 has included the name of the petitioner in the rowdy register. Placing reliance on the letter of respondent No. 3 dated 10.3.2009, the 1st respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner to drop him from the rowdy list. It is argued that the petitioner has filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 2803/2009 against respondent No. 3 for compensation and the said suit is pending. The petitioner has engaged himself in social service in the area. He is also involved in political activities. He is the General Secretary of Rajajinagar Youth Congress. That is why respondent No.3 has included his name as per the direction of his political opponents. 5. On the other hand, learned HCGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has sought to justify the impugned order. It is argued that the petitioner is a rowdy as defined under Order 1059 of the Police Manual. Many illegal activities of the petitioner have been brought to the notice of the Police authorities. He has the habit of indulging in unruly behaviour and threatening the owners of the hotels and restaurants. That is why his name has been included in the rowdy register. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. Section 21(g) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 authorises the Inspector General of Police to make Rules or Orders regulating the collection and maintenance by the Police of intelligence and information. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. Section 21(g) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 authorises the Inspector General of Police to make Rules or Orders regulating the collection and maintenance by the Police of intelligence and information. Order 1059 of the Police Manual has been made by the Inspector General of Police in exercise of the power vested in him under Section 21(g) of the said Act. A Division Bench of this Court in K.M.MUNISWAMY REDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA – ILR 1992 KAR 2543 has upheld the constitutional validity of Order No. 1059. The expression ‘rowdy’ is defined in clause (1) of order 1059 and the main forms of rowdyism are enumerated in clause (2) of the Order, which are as under: “1059, (1) A rowdy may be defined as goonda and includes a hooligan, rough, vagabond or any person, who is dangerous to the Police peace and tranquility. (2) The main forms of rowdyism are : (a) Passing indecent remarks at women and School and College Girls; (b) Intimidation of Law abiding people by acts of violence or by show of force or by abusive language; (c) Forcible collection of subscription; (d) Taking sides in petty quarrels between land-lords and tenants or between co-tenants and threatening people of the opposite party; (e) Disorderly conduct; (f) Rioting and (g) Snatching and committing robbery.” 8. An extensive definition has been used to define the expression ‘rowdy’. Thus, a ‘rowdy’ is a ‘goonda’ and includes a hooligan, rough, vagabond or any person who is dangerous to the public peace and tranquility. Only the main forms of rowdyism are enumerated in clause (2) of Order 1059. 9. The expression “ goonda” has not been defined in the Police or Manual or Karnataka Police Act 1963. If a word of everyday use is not defined in the Act, it must be construed in its popular meaning i.e. the people conversant with subject matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it. The meaning assigned in some other analogous statues can also be followed while interpreting a statue. If a word of everyday use is not defined in the Act, it must be construed in its popular meaning i.e. the people conversant with subject matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it. The meaning assigned in some other analogous statues can also be followed while interpreting a statue. The Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Gabbers Act 1985 (for short ‘Goonda’s Act’) has been enacted for the preventive detention of the person/s for maintaining law and order. The purpose of Order 1059 of the Police Manual is also for maintenance of public peace and prevent commission of offence and public nuisance. The definition of the word ‘goonda’ provided in the Goonda’s Act Can be adopted while considering the meaning of the said word in the Police Manual. The popular meaning of the word ‘goonda’ is also similar to the definition of ‘goonda’ provided in the Goonda’a Act. Section 2(g) of Goonda’s Act defines ‘goonda’ to mean a person who either by himself or as member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter VIII, Chapter XV, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII and Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code. 10. The expression ‘habitual’ means repeatedly or persistently. It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts. Repeated, persistent and similar, but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit.,InVIJAY NARAIN SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS – AIR 1984 SC 1334 , the Apex Court has assigned the meaning to the expression ‘habitually’ used in Bihar Control of Crimes Act, as under: “In both sub-clauses (i) and (iv) of Section 2(d), the word ‘habitually’ is used. The expression ‘Habitually’ means ‘repeatedly’ or ‘persistently’. It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts. Repeated. Persistent and similar, but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify and inference of habit. It connotes frequent commission of acts or omissions of the same kind referred to in each of the said sub-clauses or an aggregate of similar acts or omissions. This appears to be clear from the use of the word ‘habitually’ separately in sub-clause (i), sub-clause (ii) and sub-cl.(iv) of Section 2(d) and not in sub-clauses (iii) and (v) of Section 2(d). This appears to be clear from the use of the word ‘habitually’ separately in sub-clause (i), sub-clause (ii) and sub-cl.(iv) of Section 2(d) and not in sub-clauses (iii) and (v) of Section 2(d). Commission of an act or omission referred to in one of the sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) and of another act or omission referred to in any other of the said sub-clauses would not be sufficient to treat a person as an ‘anti-social element’. A single act or omission falling under sub-clause (i) and sub-clause (iv) of Section 2(d) cannot, therefore, be characterized as a habitual act or omission referred to in either of them. Because the idea of ‘habit’ involves an element of persistence and a tendency to repeat the acts or omissions of the same class or kind, if the acts or omissions in question are not of the same kind or even if they are of the same kind or even if they are of the same kind or even if they are of the same kind when they are committed with a long interval of time between them they cannot be treated as habitual ones.” 11. It is also relevant to note few of the other clauses of Order 1059, Clause 3 provides for maintaining the register of rowdies in every Police Station in form No. 100 in three parts viz., Part A, Part B and Part C, which should be in separate volumes. All the volumes are to be treated as confidential records. Clause 4 states that the names and particulars of ‘confirmed rowdies’, who are residents in the Police Station concerned should be entered in the register Part A. The names and particulars if ‘confirmed rowdies’ who are not residents in the Police Station limits but operate within its jurisdiction and names of ‘homeless confirmed rowdies’ should be entered in Part B and the names and particulars of ‘novices’ who are budding goondas should be entered in Part C. They may be either residents or non-residents within the Police Station concerned. Clause 11 states that when the activities of a non-resident rowdy comes to notice, the Officer incharge of the Police Station concerned should not only make necessary entries in Part B of the rowdy register but also promptly transmit information to the Officer incharge of the Police Station in the limits of which the rowdy resides, to enable the latter to make necessary entries in Part A of the rowdy register of his Police Station. Therefore, it is not necessary that the name of the person should be entered only in the Police Station within the area in which he indulges in rowdyism. His name can be entered in Part A of the rowdy register of the Police Station in the limits of which he resides. 12. As noticed above, in clause (2) of Order 1059, only main forms of rowdyism are enumerated. There may be other forms of rowdyism and the person, who habitually indulges in such forms of rowdyism can be included in the register of rowdies. Needless to say that a goonda as defined in Goonda’s Act is also a rowdy. Intimidation of law abiding people by acts of violence or by show of force or by abusive language and disorderly conduct are two main forms of rowdyism. If a person indulges in any form of rowdyism habitually has to be termed as a rowdy. The continuance of a person’s name in the register depends upon the behaviour of the said person as watched by the Police. The register is used as an information to the Police Department. The person whose name is entered is liable to be watched, but such a vigil be concealed. There is nothing in the order to indicate that entry of a person’s name in the register of rowdies would expose him to any restriction as to his movements. Order No. 1059 by itself nowhere provides for intrusion into the privacy of the rowdy sheeted person. It only enables the Police to keep a close watch on his movements to locate him and gather information as to his activities and of his associates having a direct bearing on the maintenance of public peace and tranquility. 13. Order No. 1059 by itself nowhere provides for intrusion into the privacy of the rowdy sheeted person. It only enables the Police to keep a close watch on his movements to locate him and gather information as to his activities and of his associates having a direct bearing on the maintenance of public peace and tranquility. 13. In K.M. MUNISWAMY REDDY’s case (supra), this Court has held that Order 1059 of the Police Manual has been made for regulating the collection and communication by the Police of intelligence and information, the said power also includes a power to provide for such information or intelligence as would aid the police force to discharge its duties with utmost expedition. Collection and maintenance .of information pertaining to persons who are susceptible to criminal propensities cannot thus be outside the purpose of the Police Act. It has been further held as under: “Section 21(g) of the Police Act empowers the Inspector General of Police to make Rules or Orders “regulating the collection and communication by the police of intelligence and information”.’ “Intelligence’ and ‘information’ referred here can only be intelligence or information necessary to discharge the duties by police officers effectively. There cannot be two opinions about the functions and responsibilities of Police Officers – maintain public peace and to prevent the commission of offence and public nuisance. A reading of provisions like Sections 54,55,56 and 65 show the vast responsibilities of the police force in this regard. When Section 21 says that the Inspection General of police may make orders not inconsistent with the Act or any other enactment and empowers him to make an order regulating the collection and communication by the police of intelligence and information, the said power should include, a power to provide for such information or intelligence as would aid the Police force to discharge its duties with utmost expedition. Collection and maintenance of information pertaining to persons who are susceptible to criminal propensities cannot thus be outside the purpose of the Police Act.’ 14. With this background, let us now examine as to whether petitioner can be termed as a rowdy as defined in Order 1059 of the Police Manual? 15. Learned HCGP has produced the register maintained by the Seshadripuram Police Station. With this background, let us now examine as to whether petitioner can be termed as a rowdy as defined in Order 1059 of the Police Manual? 15. Learned HCGP has produced the register maintained by the Seshadripuram Police Station. A perusal of the entries made in the register on various dates would clearly indicate that the petitioner is habitually involved in the commission of acts enumerated in clause (2) of Order 1059 of the Police Manual. He is in the habit of demanding free liquor and food from various Three Star and Five Star Hotels and in the even of refusal to execute his illegal demands, he used to indulge in unruly behaviour and threatening the owners of the hotels and restaurants. On 20.1.2007, the petitioner has visited a bar at Le Meridian Hotel and in the said bar, he found one customer, Nutan Hegde, the Bar Manager of ‘The Athani Bar’, Airport Road, and assaulted him on the ground that Nutan Hegde had not provided him drinks free of cost. A case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 35/2007 under Section 324 of the IPC, and a charge sheet was filed against him in C.C.No. 15199/2007. On 3.3.2007 at about 10.00 p.m., the petitioner visited Grand Ashoka Hotel, wherein he assaulted the security guard and threatened him to give free entry to the hotel otherwise he would face dire consequences in future. On 14.4.2007 at about 10.45 p.m., the petitioner visited Taj West End Bar and destroyed the tables, chairs and electrical lamps and threatened the security guard that in the even of any complaint is lodged against him, he has to face the consequences in future. On 7.1.2008 at about 12.30 a.m., the petitioner has parked his car at ‘No Parking’ spot at Grand Ashoka Hotel. When the officials of the Ashoka Hotel requested him to shift the car to the parking place, he has threatened the officials of Grand Ashoka Hotel. On 14.2.2008 at about 11.30 p.m., the petitioner had parked his vehicle at the entry gate of Windsr Manor Hotel. When the security of the hotel requested him to shift the same, he threatened the security guard in filthy language. Similar instances have been recorded in the register on 3.3.2008, 5.3.2008, 8.3.2008, 30.4.2008, 25.3.2009 and 4.4.2009. On 14.2.2008 at about 11.30 p.m., the petitioner had parked his vehicle at the entry gate of Windsr Manor Hotel. When the security of the hotel requested him to shift the same, he threatened the security guard in filthy language. Similar instances have been recorded in the register on 3.3.2008, 5.3.2008, 8.3.2008, 30.4.2008, 25.3.2009 and 4.4.2009. Recently, a case in Crime No.20/2011 has been registered against the petitioner under Section 323, 504 and 506 of IPC on the ground that he has assaulted Ananda S/o Ravakumar at Desmond Hotel, Lavelle Road. It is clear from the statement of objections, the other materials placed on record and the entries in the register of rowdies that petitioner has been habitually intimidating the law abiding citizens by acts of violence or by show of force or by abusive language and his conduct has been disorderly throughout. His conduct and antecedents reveal a tendency to act in a manner prejudicial to public order and safety. Therefore, Police have to keep a close watch on his movements to locate him and gather information as to his activities and his associates with a view to maintain public peace and tranquility. Taking an over all view of the matter, the first respondent has rejected the representation of the petitioner to remove his name from the list of rowdies. In my view, the said order does not call for interference. 16. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.