ORDER : P. Keshava Rao, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The prayer sought in the writ petition is as under : "...........to issue a writ or order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus to declaring the action of the respondents in opening of history sheet against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to close the same as otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and hardship and pass such other order or orders as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 3. The case of the petitioner is that a history sheet has been opened against him without there being any basis. The prerequisites for opening of the history sheet against the petitioner are lacking and the petitioner will not come within the definition of habitual offender. The requisites for opening of a rowdy sheet under the Police Standing Orders are as follows : (a) Persons, who habitually commit, attempt to commit, or about to commit, the commission of offences, involving breach of peace; (b) Persons bound over under Sections 104, 107, 108(c) and 110(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code; (c) Persons who have been convicted more than once, in two consecutive years; (d) Persons who habitually tease women, and girls by passing indecent remarks or otherwise. 4. In fact, none of the requisites for opening a rowdy sheet against the petitioner is fulfilled. Therefore, opening of a rowdy sheet is illegal, and unconstitutional and in violation of provisions of the Police Standing Orders. Because of opening of history sheet against the petitioner, it resulted in harassment to him as the police are continuously monitoring his movements and enquiring about his whereabouts. The police are also calling the petitioner to the police station and confining him in the station for hours together without there being any case registered against him. Since a history sheet is opened, none of the relatives of the petitioner are coming to his house resulting in bad reputation to him. Thereby, the action of the respondents is arbitrary and affecting the petitioner's right to life, liberty and privacy in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Since a history sheet is opened, none of the relatives of the petitioner are coming to his house resulting in bad reputation to him. Thereby, the action of the respondents is arbitrary and affecting the petitioner's right to life, liberty and privacy in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also the further case of the petitioner that a history sheet cannot be opened against any individual in a casual and mechanical manner. Except the two cases mentioned in the affidavit vide Crime No. 326 of 2014 (CC No. 1136 of 2014) and Crime No. 261 of 2007 (CC No. 422 of 2008), the petitioner is not involved in any other case. In the above said two cases, the petitioner was acquitted on 6.7.2017 and 23.6.2011 respectively. As far as Crime No. 264 of 2010 is concerned, after full-fledged investigation, it is referred as 'civil in nature' on 9.7.2014 vide SR No. 1954 of 2014. The cases in Crime Nos. 218 of 2013 and 326 of 2014 on the file of Musheerabad and Chikkadpally Police Stations are pending investigation. Therefore, the petitioner sought to quash the history sheet opened against him. 5. Respondent No. 4 filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and contended inter alia that the petitioner is a rowdy element and has scan respect towards law. He was involved in criminal cases vide Crime No. 261 of 2008 of Police Station, Chikkadpally which ended in acquittal on 23.6.2011 and Crime No. 218 of 2013 in which this Court passed stay of all further proceedings in the quash petition filed by the petitioner. It is also further stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner and others went to the shop of one Sri Mohammad Azeemuddin/ complainant son of Mohammed Fakhruddin and lured him with false promises of lending amount as loan to expand his business and created some documentation, The complainant after collecting the loan amount from them had paid the entire amount with interest and even thereafter the petitioner and others were demanding the complainant to refund the amount and thereby they cheated the complainant fraudulently for wrongful gain. The petitioner was also involved in Crime Nos. 264 of 2010 and 326 of 2014. The petitioner was also involved in Crime Nos. 264 of 2010 and 326 of 2014. In the above said two crimes, he was acquitted referring the first crime as 'civil in nature' and in the second crime, he was acquitted. 6. Apart from filing counter-affidavit, the learned Government Pleader also placed on record the written instructions dated 30.10.2018 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chikkadpally Division. 7. From a perusal of the said written instructions, it is revealed that the petitioner was involved in Crime No. 261 of 2007 which ended in acquittal on 23.6.2011, Crime No. 218 of 2013 which is pending trial vide CC No. 104 of 2015. On the basis of the said crimes registered against the petitioner, a rowdy sheet/history sheet has been opened against the petitioner on 17.7.2014 after obtaining permission from the then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chikkadpally. Even after opening of rowdy sheet, the petitioner once again involved in Crime No. 271 of 2018 and Crime No. 155 of 2018. Since the petitioner continued his criminal activities, the history sheet is being renewed from time to time and stands extended till 31.10.2018. It is also further mentioned in the written instructions that at present the petitioner is facing trial in three criminal cases mentioned therein. 8. The petitioner, in reply to the counter-affidavit on behalf of the 4th respondent, filed a reply affidavit stating that in Crime No. 261 of 2007 vide CC No. 422 of 2008, he was acquitted on the file of the DC Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad since the dispute relating to a monetary transaction. In Crime No. 218 of 2013 the petitioner was arrayed as accused No. 1 alongwith four others. The above said case was registered based on a private complaint referred to by the Court In the said complaint, the petitioner is no an accused. In fact, accused No. 1 is Syed Althaf Ali son of Khaja Hussain Ali, whereas, the petitioner's name is Syed Althaf Hussain son of late Syed Basheer Hussain. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in Crl.P. No. 14227 of 2013 and obtained anticipatory bail. This Court, in the orders, referred that the petitioner is not an accused in the above said crime. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in Crl.P. No. 14227 of 2013 and obtained anticipatory bail. This Court, in the orders, referred that the petitioner is not an accused in the above said crime. As far as Crime No. 264 of 2010 registered by Musheerabad Police Station on a private complaint referred by the Court is concerned, it was referred as 'civil in nature' vide proceedings dated 9.7.2014. The only case pending against the petitioner was Crime No. 326 of 2014 registered by Chikkadpally Police Station for the offences under Sections 324, 448 and 506 read with 34 IPC and the same was pending investigation. 9. Having heard both the Counsel and from a perusal of the material on record, it is revealed that the petitioner involved in criminal cases as referred supra and has been acquitted except Crime No. 326 of 2014. Admittedly, during the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was also acquitted in the above said crime vide CC No. 1136 of 2014 on 6.7.2017. Therefore, no criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. When no criminal case is pending against the petitioner, the history sheet opened against the petitioner cannot be continued and the same is liable to be quashed. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the decision of this Court in Chitluri Srinivasa Rao v. Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District, 2015 (1) ALD (Crl.) 889, continuation of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner is illegal. 11. The above said issue has been dealt with by this Court and the Apex Court in catena of judgments. 12. In Dhanji Ram Sharma v. Superintendent of Police, North District, Delhi Police, AIR 1966 SC 1766 , a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the condition precedent for opening a history sheet is that such person should be reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor of crime. In order to justify opening of a history sheet, the Supreme Court opined that the police officer must have a reasonable belief based on reasonable grounds. 13. In order to justify opening of a history sheet, the Supreme Court opined that the police officer must have a reasonable belief based on reasonable grounds. 13. In Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 1334, another three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the expression 'habitually' would mean 'repeatedly' or 'persistently' implying a thread of continuity, stringing together similar repetitive acts, and a single act or omission would not characterize an act as 'habitual'. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that to qualify as a 'habit', a person must have grown accustomed to leading a life of crime, whereby it would be a force of habit, inherent or latent, in an individual with a criminal instinct, with a criminal disposition of mind, that makes him dangerous to society in general. This judgment was rendered in the context of preventive detention but the observations made therein as to the connotations and interpretation of the expression 'habitual' are of relevance. 14. In Majid Babu v. Government of A.P., 1987 (2) ALT 904 , a learned Judge of this Court dealt with an opening of a rowdy sheet under Standing Order 742. The learned Judge held that two instances of involvement in criminal cases would not make a person a 'habitual offender' and that atleast more than two instances should be present before a person can be described as a habitual offender. 15. This principle was affirmed by another learned Judge of this Court in Kamma Bapuji v. Station House Officer, Brahmasamudram, 1997 (6) ALD 583 . In this case, the persons in whose name the rowdy sheets were opened were involved in two cases but they were acquitted in both. It was sought to be contended on behalf of the police authorities that the rowdy sheets were opened during the pendency of the cases and that acquittal therein would be of no consequence thereafter. The learned Judge rejected this contention and held that rowdy sheets could not be opened in a casual and mechanical manner and a person could not be dubbed a 'habitual offender' merely because he was involved in two criminal cases. 16. The learned Judge rejected this contention and held that rowdy sheets could not be opened in a casual and mechanical manner and a person could not be dubbed a 'habitual offender' merely because he was involved in two criminal cases. 16. A Division Bench of this Court in Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, 1998 (3) ALT 55 (D.B.), confirmed this principle holding that a rowdy sheet could not be opened against an individual in a casual and mechanical manner and due care and caution should be taken by the police before characterizing a person as a rowdy. Referring to the earlier case law, the Division Bench expressed agreement with the view of the learned Judge in Kamma Bapuji's case (supra), that figuring as an accused in two crimes would not be sufficient to categorize a person as a 'habitual offender'. The same principle was reaffirmed in Shaik Mahboob v. The Commissioner of Police, 1990 (1) APLJ 363 ; Gudivada Sai Baba v. State of A.P., Home Department, 2002 (3) ALT 391 ; P. Sathiyya Naidu v. Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, 2010 (2) ALD (Cri.) 545 (AP) : 2011 (2) ALT 61 and Beerjepally Venkatesh Babu v. State of A.P., 2014 (3) ALT 264 . 17. In Mohammed Quadeer v. Commissioner of Police, Hyd., 1999 (3) ALD 60 , the same learned Judge who decided Kamma Bapuji's case (supra), opined that the A.P. Police Standing Orders were not statutory in nature and were only a compilation of Government orders issued from time to time and they therefore did not invest the police officers with any powers of arrest, detention, investigation of crimes etc., not specifically conferred under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or other enactments. As regards retention of a rowdy sheet, the learned Judge held that opening of a rowdy sheet against a citizen was undoubtedly fraught with serious consequences and the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution could not be deprived except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The learned Judge therefore observed that the law which authorizes the police to open rowdy sheets and exercise surveillance would have to be very strictly construed. 18. The learned Judge therefore observed that the law which authorizes the police to open rowdy sheets and exercise surveillance would have to be very strictly construed. 18. In Pulla Bhaskar v. Superintendent of Police, Warangal, 1999 (5) ALD 155 another learned Judge of this Court held that once there is a long interval between involvement in different criminal cases, such a person could not be termed a 'habitual offender' within the meaning of Standing Order 742. 19. In Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000 (1) ALD (Cri.) 117 (AP), a learned Judge of this Court was concerned with the maintenance of history sheets/rowdy sheets for considerably long periods of time and held that the same would not only violate the right of privacy but also other fundamental rights of such persons under Articles 14 and 19of the Constitution. The learned Judge was of the opinion that orders for opening or retention of history sheets/rowdy sheets should be passed under administrative instructions and guidelines and if such orders are challenged, the competent authority has to place the reasons before the Court justifying the opening/retention of such history sheets/rowdy sheets. The learned Judge further opined that it would be better for the police officer concerned to record his own reasons for opening/retention of the history sheets/rowdy sheets. 20. In B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP), a Division Bench of this Court held that the expressions 'habitually commit', 'attempt to commit' and 'abet the commission' of offences indicate the requirement that atleast two or more cases have been registered against the person concerned to characterize him as a person who habitually commits, attempts to or abets the commission of offences. The Division Bench held that involvement of a person in a solitary case would not be enough to classify such person as 'habitually' committing offences. The Division Bench therefore held that the solitary instance in which the appellant therein was alleged to be involved it could not constitute the basis to classify him as a rowdy. 21. In the light of the above stated settled proposition of law, it is clear that opening of a rowdy sheet in the name of the petitioner on the basis of his involvement in a solitary criminal case is not sufficient to term him as habitual offender under Clause-A of Order 601 of the Police Control Order. 21. In the light of the above stated settled proposition of law, it is clear that opening of a rowdy sheet in the name of the petitioner on the basis of his involvement in a solitary criminal case is not sufficient to term him as habitual offender under Clause-A of Order 601 of the Police Control Order. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is acquitted in one crime registered against him. Inspite of the same, the respondents appear to have continued the rowdy sheet in his name. 22. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was acquitted in Crime No. 326 of 2014 vide CC No. 1136 of 2014 on 6.7.2017. Similarly, the petitioner was acquitted in Crime No. 261 of 2007 vide CC No. 422 of 2008 on 23.6.2011. Crime No. 264 of 2011 was referred as false on 9.7.2014. As far as Crime No. 271 of 2018 is concerned, the petitioner was acquitted for the offence under Section 420 IPC on 19.7.2018. 23. In the above circumstances, this Court holds that opening of rowdy sheet in the name of the petitioner and continuance of the same thereafter, is in violation of the life and liberty as guaranteed to the petitioner under the provisions of the Constitution of India as well as contrary to the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court, as stated supra. 24. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the rowdy sheet opened in the name of the petitioner is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. 25. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.