Judgment : Petitioners instituted this writ petition alleging that illegally a rowdy sheet was opened and police harassing the petitioners by calling them for attendance in the police station. The petitioners averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that a false case was registered against them in Crime No.01 of 2003 under Sections 147, 148, 354, 436, 324 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Sessions Case No.411 of 2003, which was taken up as a result of the registration of Crime No.01 of 2003, ended in acquittal by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Asifabad, dated 02.08.2006. The petitioners, therefore, contend that except the above false criminal case, which was ultimately ended in acquittal, there is no other crime registered against them and, therefore, opening of rowdy sheet, continuation of said proceedings and harassing them is against their right to personal liberty, dignity and honour and, therefore, prays to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in including the names of the petitioners in the history sheet and pasting the photos in the list of history sheeters as illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional. 2. The learned Government Pleader furnished written instructions dated 13.08.2013 singed by the Sub-Inspector of Police (Additional) Sirpur Town Police Station, Adilabad. As per the written instructions, it appears that fourth petitioner-Durga Nam Dev expired on 17.03.2011. In view of the same, the writ petition abates insofar as the 4th petitioner is concerned. 3. The written instructions furnished by the Sub-Inspector of Police disclose that the petitioners were involved in several crimes. Crime No.17 to 21 of 2004 were registered against them. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Sirpur, bound over the petitioners 1 to 3 with regard to the above crimes. Similar orders of bound over were also passed on 07.03.2009, 16.07.2010, 03.09.2011 and 15.07.2013 in other crimes. It is stated that rowdy sheets of the petitioners were opened on 01.06.2003 and it is continued on account of involvement of the petitioners in the crimes regularly. It is contended that petitioners are having criminal mentality, pick up quarrel with the people on petty issues and creating problems in maintaining law and order. 4. Chapter-33 of A.P. Police Manual deals with the Station Crime Records. Police Standing Order 596 deals with the automatic opening of history sheets. It is contended that petitioners are having criminal mentality, pick up quarrel with the people on petty issues and creating problems in maintaining law and order. 4. Chapter-33 of A.P. Police Manual deals with the Station Crime Records. Police Standing Order 596 deals with the automatic opening of history sheets. According to sub-para 1 therein, history sheets shall be opened automatically at the time of conviction for persons convicted as there under and shall be retained for two years after release from jail. Police Standing Order 597 deals with discontinuance of history sheets. According to sub-para 2 therein, where the retention of a history sheet as mentioned in Order 596-1 is considered necessary after two years of registration, orders of the Sub-Divisional Police officer must be taken for the extension of the period in the first instance up to the end of the next December and for further annual extension from January to December every year. Police Standing Order 602 deals with rowdies. According to sub-para 1 therein, the following listed persons are classified as rowdies and maintenance of rowdy sheets: 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. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108 (ii) and 110(e) and (g) of Criminal Procedure Code. According to sub-para 2 therein, instructions in Order 597 regarding discontinuance of history sheets shall also apply to rowdy sheets.5. There are two competing interests in the matter of opening rowdy sheets. On account of opening of rowdy sheet, the citizens are compelled to report to the local police station as and when warranted by the police. There would be curtailment of life and liberty of the persons against whom rowdy sheets are opened. Thus, the privacy and integrity of the individual gets adversely affected on account of opening of rowdy sheets. However, it is also the duty and responsibility of the police to ensure the peace and harmony in the society. If it comes to the notice of the police that activities of certain persons is causing disharmony and affecting the peace in the locality, the police can enforce surveillance on the persons. Such surveillance cannot be said to be as obtrusive or invasive, excessive or oppressive. If it comes to the notice of the police that activities of certain persons is causing disharmony and affecting the peace in the locality, the police can enforce surveillance on the persons. Such surveillance cannot be said to be as obtrusive or invasive, excessive or oppressive. The instructions furnished by the Sub-Inspector of Police disclose that petitioners were involved in several crimes since the year 2004 and on each time, they were bound over to come up with good conduct in future. The fact that the crimes were registered against them and bound over was made, show that there was possibility of breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquility on account of the conduct of the petitioners and therefore surveillance is necessary. 6. The primary requirement to open a rowdy sheet is person must involve in two or more crimes. Thus, on mere registration of one crime, persons cannot be classified as habitual offenders. Thus, in 2003 when rowdy sheets were opened against petitioners 1 to 3, the action of respondents was not valid since only one crime was registered against the petitioners 1 to 3 in the year 2003 and prior to 2003, there was no crime registered against the petitioners. However, this court cannot be oblivious to the fact that subsequently from the year 2004 onwards, at regular intervals the petitioners 1 to 3 were involved in crimes and they were bound over under Section 107 Cr.P.C. As per Police Standing Order 602(1)(B), person who is bound over under Section 107 is classified as rowdy and rowdy sheet shall be opened against him. Thus, it cannot be said continuation of rowdy sheet is invalid. 7. This writ petition is instituted in the year 2010 alleging that they were unnecessarily harassed and humiliated by calling them to the police station by opening rowdy sheets and displaying their photographs in the rowdy sheeters list on the ground that crime was registered against them in the year 2003. Petitioners have not disclosed the registration of crimes subsequently and orders passed binding over them twice by the time the writ petition is filed. Petitioners have not come with clean hands. Petitioners have not disclosed the registration of crimes subsequently and orders passed binding over them twice by the time the writ petition is filed. Petitioners have not come with clean hands. Thus in view of the involvement of the petitioners in the crimes subsequently, the action of the respondents in continuation of the rowdy sheets against petitioners 1 to 3 cannot be said to be obtrusive and invasive and affecting their right of freedom and liberty. The peace and tranquility in the society and maintenance of law and order is primary concern of the Police. Petitioners are not entitled to writ of mandamus. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.