ORDER : A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for respondents. 2. The issue, which was already decided by this court is raised again by the learned counsel for the petitioner which prompted this Court to render this order. 3. The facts leading to this order are that the petitioner who is a resident of Kakinada was working with S.H.India Limited, Exporters in Rice, having its head office at Delhi. The second respondent registered four crimes, Crime No.33/2004, 35/2004, 30/2005 and 157/2007 for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC alleging that while the petitioner was working as Manager of the said company, he purchased non-export rice from various traders, filling into bags after grading through three caners and grader machines, loading into lorry and sending them to port for export. On 28.06.2007, the District Collector (C.S) conducted a raid and filed a report showing the petitioner as the first accused. Besides the same, a suspect sheet was opened against the petitioner on 08.07.2007. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition was filed. 4. Counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent indicates that the petitioner was habitually purchasing Ex.North rice (S.G.R.Y & FFW) which were meant for poor people from various traders and filling into bags after grading through pre-cleaners and grader machines, loading into the lorries and sending them to port for export. On 28.06.2007, the District Supplies Officer conducted a raid and filed a report in Port Police Station showing the petitioner as first accused and a case in Crime No.157/2006 was registered and it was pending trial in C.C.No.368/2008. Earlier also, the petitioner was involved in such type of criminal cases vide Crime Nos.33/2004, 35/2004 and 30/2005 and the cases were pending trial in the Court of the Special Mobile Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kakinada. The petitioner has been continuing the activities and he was addicted to do so and hence it requires keeping a close watch on the moments of the petitioner. As per Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Order No.600-1 (B) and (E) and G.O.Ms.No.3929, Home, dated 05.09.1950, the suspect sheet was opened against the petitioner with the sanction of the first respondent on 07.07.2007 and it was being maintained in the second respondent police station and was being renewed from time to time. 5. As per Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Order No.600-1 (B) and (E) and G.O.Ms.No.3929, Home, dated 05.09.1950, the suspect sheet was opened against the petitioner with the sanction of the first respondent on 07.07.2007 and it was being maintained in the second respondent police station and was being renewed from time to time. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offences and he was transacting the business only on behalf of his employer. The allegations levelled against the petitioner do not show that the petitioner caused any disturbance to public peace and tranquillity in order to allow opening of the suspect sheet. The respondents have no justification in continuing the suspect sheet and they have not been reviewing every year. The opening of suspect sheet against the petitioner violates Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that the suspect sheet was opened in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual only. 7. The Andhra Pradesh Police Manual makes a distinction between the suspects and rowdies. Order No.600 deals with Suspects, whereas Order No.601 deals with Rowdies. Order No.600 reads as follows: "Suspects: 600-1. The following persons should be classified as suspects and History Sheets shall be opened for them under the orders of the Superintendent of Police/SPDO. A. Persons once convicted under any section of the Indian Penal Code who are considered likely to commit crime again, and B. Persons, not convicted, but believed to be addicted to crime. C. Communal and Caste activists who are known to instigate, organise violence or spark off communal or caste riots. D. Smugglers, hoarders, black marketeers and for professional and grabbers. 2. Care should be taken to see that History Sheets are opened under this Order only for persons who are likely to turn out to be habitual criminals or who are members of organised crime syndicates or such organisations who had history or plan for violence and therefore, require close surveillance. The material and information collected to obtain orders from the SSP or other officers authorised to order opening of history sheets in this category should bring out the above requirements. 8. The material and information collected to obtain orders from the SSP or other officers authorised to order opening of history sheets in this category should bring out the above requirements. 8. Order No.602 states that the history sheets of suspects shall be maintained from the date of registration up to the end of December, after which the orders of a gazetted officer as to their discontinuance or retention for a further period shall be obtained. Merely because of the absence of a case during the previous 5 years after the last case in which he was involved would not preclude the concerned authority to continue his history sheet. 9. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Ejaz v. Govt. of A.P., 1998 (2) ALT 469 examined Standing Order No.742 and held that a person who habitually commits offences involving breach of peace and who is involved in more than two such cases can be classified as a Rowdy and a rowdy sheet can be opened against him even if he is not convicted for the said offences. Thus, it is a case relating to Rowdies. 10. The Division Bench of this Court in Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, 1998 (3) ALT 55 while dealing with opening of rowdy sheet under Standing Order No.742, considered earlier decision of this Court in Kamma Bapuji v. Station House Officer, Brahmasamudram, 1997 (6) ALD 583 and held that a rowdy sheet cannot be opened against any individual in a casual and mechanical manner. It was further held that 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. The said decision is also a decision rendered in connection with opening of rowdy sheet. 11. The above two cases were considered by another Division Bench of this Court in B.Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004 (2) ALT (Crl) 115.Another learned Single Judge of this Court in Venkata Satyanarayana v. Commissioner of Police, 2007 (3) ALT 503 examined the difference between the history sheet and rowdy sheet and held that merely because the bound over period of one year is over one is not entitled for automatic closure of history sheet/rowdy sheet. 12. 12. Yet another learned Single Judge of this Court in Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2001 (1) ALD (Crl) 117 elaborately considered the validity of opening of rowdy sheets and history sheets and ultimately held that maintenance of history sheet/rowdy sheet for a long time violates not only right to privacy under Article 21 and also other fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The said decision was followed by another learned Single Judge in an unreported decision in W.P.No.12194 of 2007 dated 25.06.2010. But none of the decisions lay down a rule that in respect of a person facing criminal cases, the history sheet/rowdy sheet cannot be opened. 13. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that gravity of offences should be taken into consideration while opening a suspect sheet, such a consideration was not provided in the Police Manual. A reading of Order No.600 shows that in respect of a person once convicted under any section of the Indian Penal Code and who is considered likely to commit crime again, a history sheet can be opened. 14. In the present case, all the cases registered against the petitioner were found to be pending at the time of filing of the counter-affidavit in November, 2008 and it cannot be said that the opening of a suspect sheet in the circumstances is bad. 15. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to review the case of the petitioner as per the Order No.602 of the A.P.Police Manual and pass appropriate orders. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.