ORDER : Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. 1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in opening rowdy; sheet bearing No. 148 against the petitioner, as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, to direct the respondents to close the rowdy sheet bearing No. 148 opened against the petitioner. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents 1 to 4. 3. The petitioner claims to be the resident of Mangalagiri Town and has been working as a private ambulance operator and that he is also the owner of the ambulance and that he is doing medical shop business in the name and style of "M/s. Mahesh Medicals". 4. Whileso, a case under Sections 120-B, 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 of IPC was registered against him in Crime No. 289 of 2013 of Mangalagiri Town; Police Station. It is stated that the said case was foisted against him due to political rivalry. After the above crime was registered against him for the offences under Sections 120B, 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 of IPC, a rowdy sheet in HS No. 148 was opened against the petitioner in the year 2013 and the same is being continued till today. Some more crimes were also registered against the petitioner for various offences by Mangalagiri Town Police. All the aforesaid crimes registered against the petitioner ended in acquittal. However, despite the fact that the petitioner was acquitted in all the crimes that were registered against him, the rowdy sheet that was opened against him in the year 2013 is being extended from time to time. The petitioner also approached the concerned authority of the Police Department with a request to close the rowdy sheet as he was acquitted in all the crimes that were registered against him. However, as there was no response from the respondent police officials and as the said rowdy sheet is not closed, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present writ petition seeking direction to the respondent police officials to close the said rowdy sheet. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent police officials. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent police officials. It is admitted that the crimes that were registered against the petitioner earlier ended in acquittal. However, invoking Ground No. 12, as contemplated under Standing Order 601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders, wherein it is stated that when a charge-sheet is filed against any person for the offence of murder and attempt to commit murder that a rowdy sheet can be opened, the respondent police officials sought to justify opening of the said rowdy sheet. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that Standing Order 602(2) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders envisages that even though a person against whom a rowdy sheet was opened is not figuring as accused in the previous five years after the last case in which he was involved, nothing would preclude the S.P./D.C.P./C.P. to continue the rowdy sheet if they are of the considered view that the activities of the rowdy sheeter are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or one affecting peace and tranquility in the area or the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him. Therefore, invoking the aforesaid Standing Order 602(2), it is pleaded that even though the petitioner is not figuring as an accused in any crime at present, the rowdy sheet can be continued as activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, affecting peace and tranquility in the area. Therefore, the respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Admittedly, the rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner earlier in the year 2013 on the ground that about four crimes were registered against him, which includes a case under Section 302 of IPC. It is not in dispute that all the cases, including the case under Section 302 of IPC, which were registered against the petitioner, ended in acquittal. Therefore, as on today, no crime was pending against the petitioner. So, the respondent police officials cannot invoke Ground No. 12 of Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police Standing Orders to extend the period of rowdy sheet opened against him and to continue the same. 7. Therefore, as on today, no crime was pending against the petitioner. So, the respondent police officials cannot invoke Ground No. 12 of Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police Standing Orders to extend the period of rowdy sheet opened against him and to continue the same. 7. As regards the Standing Order 602(2) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders is concerned, even though the said standing order enables the police to continue the rowdy sheet even when the petitioner is not figuring as an accused in any pending case, a careful reading of the aforesaid Order makes it manifest that the concerned authority can continue the rowdy sheet only when the activities of the petitioner are found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquility in the area or where the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him. So, three grounds are contemplated to continue the rowdy sheet under Standing Order 602(2) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders viz., (i) that the concerned authority must have material before him that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; (ii) his conduct must be of such a nature which affecting the peace and tranquility in the area; and (iii) that the victims are not coming forward to give any complaint against him on account of threat from him. Existence of any one of these three grounds is sine qua non for extending the period of rowdy sheet from time to time even though when the petitioner is not figured as an accused in any pending case. As can be seen from the material available on record, the respondent police officials did not produce any order passed extending the period of rowdy sheet based on the aforesaid three grounds contemplated under Standing Order 602(2) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders. Mere making a bald assertion in the counter-affidavit sans producing any material to substantiate the said version cannot be countenanced to justify extension of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. No material whatsoever is produced before this Court to substantiate the version of the respondents that the petitioner has involved in any activity which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or which may affect the peace and tranquility in the area. No material whatsoever is produced before this Court to substantiate the version of the respondents that the petitioner has involved in any activity which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or which may affect the peace and tranquility in the area. There is also no valid material or record to substantiate the fact that any victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him. So, in the absence of any such material on record, the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that there is justification to continue the rowdy sheet by invoking Standing Order 602(2) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders cannot be accepted. 8. Therefore, as the petitioner is not figured as an accused in any case at present and as all the crimes, including the crime under Section 302 of IPC, which were earlier registered against him, ended in acquittal, and as there is no material on record justifying extension of the rowdy sheet in terms of Standing Order 602(2) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders, the impugned proceedings extending the rowdy sheet from time to time against the petitioner without any valid basis are clearly unsustainable under law. 9. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed declaring that extending the rowdy sheet bearing No. 148 against the petitioner from time to time without any valid basis is illegal and unconstitutional. The rowdy sheet that was opened against the petitioner and which is being extended from time to time is hereby ordered to be closed forthwith. No costs. 10. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.