ORDER : P. Naveen Rao, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 2. In this writ petition petitioner is aggrieved by opening of Rowdy Sheet and continuing the same till date. Petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.06.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Hyderabad-3rd respondent, rejecting the request of petitioner to close the Rowdy Sheet. 3. According to the respondents, 15 crimes were registered against the petitioner and therefore, Rowdy Sheet was validly opened. The first crime was reported in the year 1995 and over a period of time, petitioner continued to involve in crimes. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, from the list of crimes mentioned in Paragraph No. 3 of the counter affidavit, petitioner was acquitted in all the crimes and no crime is pending against him. With reference to Item Nos. 14 and 15, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rowdy Sheets are opened on special occasions such as Ganesh Chaturthi or any other important event that takes place in the City, police invoke the provisions of Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure and ensure binding over orders are passed against persons on whom rowdy sheet is opened. This is meant to ensure that the persons with Rowdy Sheet do not indulge in crimes during special occasions. It is a preventive measure. Thus, as long as Rowdy Sheet is continued, police continue to register such crimes for the limited purpose of binding over for good conduct during special occasions. 5. Right to life and liberty are sacrosanct to a person. A person is entitled to lead his life with dignity and self respect. He is entitled to privacy. His rights flow out of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Surveillance on person certainly infringes on his right to life, privacy and liberty. These rights cannot be infringed except by due process of law. Compelling public interest may require intrusion into privacy of a person but while doing so great care and caution has to be observed. Thus, if police open a rowdy sheet to keep surveillance on a person it must show justification, impelled to ensure peace and order in the society. 6. Compelling public interest may require intrusion into privacy of a person but while doing so great care and caution has to be observed. Thus, if police open a rowdy sheet to keep surveillance on a person it must show justification, impelled to ensure peace and order in the society. 6. The scope and width of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, scope of power of police to infringe privacy of a person and scope and ambit of Police Standing Orders (for short, 'PSO') were vividly analyzed and dealt with extensively by two learned Judges of this Court in Mohammed Quadeer and others Vs. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and another 1999 (3) ALD 60 and Sunkara Satyanarayana vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department and others 1999 (6) ALT 249 . In both these decisions it is held that PSOs are non statutory executive instructions and have no binding force of law. 7. In Mohammed Quadeer and others (supra), it is held: 33. Therefore, I have no hesitation whatsoever to reject the plea that mere surveillance and watch by the Police itself would not infringe the fundamental rights of a citizen. Such surveillance and watch which is not authorised by law may be unconstitutional. Such surveillance and watch even if it is authorised by law but if it is not in accordance with that law would equally be unconstitutional." (emphasis supplied) 8. ["Order 601. The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 80) may be opened for them under the orders of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO.]In paragraph 49 of Sunkara Satyanarayana (supra), learned single Judge culled out principles on police surveillance against history/rowdy sheeters. To the extent relevant, they read as under: "49……. (iii) If police surveillance is in accordance with executive/departmental guidelines and not authorised by statute or rules having statutory force, it is for the State to prove that surveillance does not in any way infringe the fundamental right of the person and that the authorities have followed the guidelines scrupulously in ordering surveillance, …….. (vi) In either case-whether police regulations are statutory or where they have no statutory force-there should be sufficient material to induce the opinion that the history sheeters/rowdy sheeters show a determination to lead a life of crime which involves public peace or security only. (vi) In either case-whether police regulations are statutory or where they have no statutory force-there should be sufficient material to induce the opinion that the history sheeters/rowdy sheeters show a determination to lead a life of crime which involves public peace or security only. Mere convictions in criminal cases where nothing imperils the safety of the society cannot be regarded as warrange surveillance under the relevant regulations, however broadly and in whatever language the regulation might have been couched, …….. (viii) The above principles that emerge from various binding precedents are only general principles. As seen from various decided cases of this Court, opening of history sheet or rowdy sheet can be justified only when it is proved before the Court by the State that based on the relevant material the competent police officer has applied mind with due care and considered all aspects in the light of the law and then ordered opening of history sheet or rowdy sheet or ordered continuation or retention of the history sheet. In the beginning of this Judgment, all the relevant decisions of this Court have been referred to and those principles may also have to be kept in mind." (emphasis supplied) 9. The Andhra Pradesh Police Manual deals with various aspects of functioning of police personnel which include registration of crimes, investigation, conducting of trial and opening of rowdy sheets etc. PSO-6011 deals with opening of rowdy sheet. According to Clause-A['Clause-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."] thereof, if a person habitually commits, attempts to commit or abet the commission of offences involving breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security, a rowdy sheet can be opened to closely observe his movements and activities. According to Clause-B['Clause-B. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(1)(i) and 110(e) (g) of Cr.P.C.] thereof, the persons who are bound over should be classified as rowdies and rowdy sheets can be opened and continued. 10. Reading of extracted provision of PSO-601-A, makes it clear that to open and continue rowdy sheet emphasis is on habitually committing offence involving breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security. 11. 10. Reading of extracted provision of PSO-601-A, makes it clear that to open and continue rowdy sheet emphasis is on habitually committing offence involving breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security. 11. From a reading of the order rejecting the request of petitioner to close the Rowdy Sheet, it is seen that the Station House Officer of Kamatipura Police Station, on verification of crime record of the petitioner was satisfied that Rowdy Sheet need not be continued against him and accordingly, recommended to close the Rowdy Sheet. 12. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Charminar Division, under whose jurisdiction Kamatipura Police Station falls, forwarded the said report to the Deputy Commissioner of Police. Not satisfied with the report submitted by the Station House Officer and referring to the conviction recorded by the trial Court in Cr. No. 83 of 2002 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, further report was called. In the further report, the Station House Officer, reiterated the earlier recommendation informing the Deputy Commissioner of Police that against the conviction of trial Court, the accused filed Criminal Appeals and the appellate Court acquitted the accused. 13. In spite of those recommendations, and though petitioner has not come to any adverse notice for the last two years, the Deputy Commissioner refused to revoke the Rowdy Sheet on the ground that petitioner was closely associated with some criminals who are involved in crimes and inimical to the security of the State. This view of Joint Commissioner of Police who was holding the Full Additional Charge of the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Zone is not supported by any material, it is vague and unsubstantiated. 14. From the material on record, it is seen that there is no justification to keep the Rowdy Sheet when no crimes are pending against the petitioner and when the Station House Officer, opined that it is not necessary to keep the Rowdy Sheet against petitioner. The impugned decision amounts to arbitrary exercise of power violating rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 15. Thus, the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to close the Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner. However, if police come to adverse notice of involvement of petitioner in further crimes, it is always open to them to take appropriate course of action, as warranted by law, and to keep a watch on the movements of petitioner. 16. Thus, the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to close the Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner. However, if police come to adverse notice of involvement of petitioner in further crimes, it is always open to them to take appropriate course of action, as warranted by law, and to keep a watch on the movements of petitioner. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.