ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondents in opening the Rowdy Sheet bearing R.S.No.409 at Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur District/5th respondent, as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitution and violative of Article 221 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to remove the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows:- The petitioner is a citizen of India and permanent residence of Delhi and he has been serving as Advisory Director of Kendriya Bhanadar, Government of India since 2014 and living peacefully as a respectable law abiding citizen. The petitioner is a victim of a politically powerful persons who defamed the petitioner outrageously to put an end to the political future growth of the petitioner by filing false cases against the petitioner. The petitioner came to know that the rowdy sheet was opened against him on 03.05.2023. Hence, this petition. 3. The 3rd respondent filed counter, resisting the petitioner with averments briefly as follows:- (a) The petitioner has scant respect for law and he is involved in the following cases. (i) . Cr.No.342/2021 U/s 307, 323, 342, 384, 420, 120(b) R/w 34 IPC & 25, 27 of Arms Act was registgered against the accused/petitioner herein at Prathipadu P.S during the course of investigation it is came to light that the offence took place at a villa at Mangalagiri which comes under purview of Mangalagiri P.S, thus this case is transferred to Mangalagiri Rural P.S on point of jurisdication. This case is referred as flase on 31.07.2022 vide C.No.537/2022/Ref/SDPO-North, Dated 31.02.2022. (ii) Cr.No.202/2022 U/s 324 R/w 34 IPC was registered against the accused/petitioner herin at PRathipadu P.S after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before the Hon’ble VI Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Guntur on 27.10.2023, C.C.No. No is awaited. (iii) Cr.No.223/2022 U/s 506, 509 IPC was registered against the accused/petitioner herein at Prathipadu P.S after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed fbefore the Hon’ble VI Additionla Junior Civil Judge Court, Guntur on 25.08.2023, C.C.No. No is awaited. (iv) Cr.No.73/2023 U/s 506 IPC was registered against the accused/petitioner herein at Prathipadu P.S after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before the Hon’ble VI Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Guntur, present the case is in PT vide C.C.No.3465/2023. (iv) Cr.No.73/2023 U/s 506 IPC was registered against the accused/petitioner herein at Prathipadu P.S after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before the Hon’ble VI Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Guntur, present the case is in PT vide C.C.No.3465/2023. (v) Cr.No.233/2019 U/s 506 IPC, 155(2) CrPC was registered against the accused/petitioner herein at Medikonduru P.S after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before the Hon’ble Court, the case is disposed as LA in LOK Adalath Court on 12.12.2020 vide C.C.No.1063/2020. (vi) Cr.No.19/2021 U/s 420, 493, 496, 506, 495 IPC was registered against the accused/petitioner herein at Disha-Women P.S after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before the Hon’ble V ACJC Court, Guntur, present the case in P.T vide C.C.No.4960/2021. (b) To curb and curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioner in the vicinity of Prathipadu Police Station, a Rowdy Sheet No.674 under “B” category on the file of Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur District was opened after getting permission from the Sub-divisional Police Officer Guntur District. As per Andhra Pradesh Police Mannual Order No.601, the persons stated therein may be classified as rowdies and rowdy sheets may be opened for them under the orders of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO. (c) The Standing Order No.602(2) says- “merely because a suspect/rowdy, having a history sheet, is not figuring as accused in the previous 5 years after the last case in which he was involved, it should not preclude the SP/DCP/CP to continue his history sheet if SP/DCP/CP is of the considered view that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or one affecting peace and tranquillity in the area or the victims is not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him”. (d) The above said four criminal cases are still pending against the petitioner. Unless and until, a close watch is maintained against the unlawful activities of the petitioner, there is every chance that he may repeat the offences. In view of the public interest and mainly to safeguard the residents where the petitioner is residing, the rowdy sheet was opened and continued against him, but not otherwise. Till the attitude of the petitioner is changed, the rowdy sheet is to continue on revision. The allegations contrary to the above facts are untenable. There are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. Till the attitude of the petitioner is changed, the rowdy sheet is to continue on revision. The allegations contrary to the above facts are untenable. There are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. The petitioner filed rejoinder. The averments are briefly as follows:- The petitioner denied the averments in the counter regarding his alleged attitude towards law and the public. In response to allegations against him with regard to various crimes mentioned in the counter, he stated that – (i) Cr.No.342/2021 was closed as false case. (ii) Cr.No.202/2022 was registered on the complaint of person who is a habitual criminal involved in three criminal cases which are pending before the Prathipadu Police Station and he has rivalry against the petitioner due to pendency of civil and criminal cases filed by the petitioner in Guntur and the petitioner claimed refund of the loan from the de fact complainant. For that, the petitioner filed Crl.P.No.8438/2023 under section 482 CrPC before this High Court to quash the case in Cr.No.202/2022. (iii) The petitioner filed the petition under section 482 CrPC vide Crl.P.No.8124/2023 to quash the case in Cr.No.233/2023 by this High Court and notices were ordered to be issued to all the respondents. Further, the de facto complainant in this case is a habitual criminal involved in three criminal cases pending before Prathipadu Police Station and he has filed the complaint against the petitioner as he issued a legal notice and for black-mailing the petitioner’s in-laws demanding money. (iv) The case vide C.C.No.3465/2023 is fictious and false case and the petitioner was never summoned at any time relating to the case. (v) The case in Cr.No.233/2019/C.C.No.1063/2020 was referred to Lok Adalat on 12.10.2020 and the same was disposed of on 12.12.2020 before the Lok Adalat (vi) C.C.No.4960/2021 is fictious and false case and the petitioner was never summoned at any time relating to the case. The de facto complainant therein is aged about 50 years and woman constable and she is married to Mr Kanakavalli Murali Krishna and has three children out of their wedlock. She is now a widow and frequently black-mails persons with similar nature of cases. Moreover, there are criminal cases pending against her in Arundalpet P.S Mangalagiri and Tenali P.S of Guntur District. She is misusing her official powers. She is now a widow and frequently black-mails persons with similar nature of cases. Moreover, there are criminal cases pending against her in Arundalpet P.S Mangalagiri and Tenali P.S of Guntur District. She is misusing her official powers. The petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.6934/2023 under Section 482 CrPC to quash this case by this High Court. The petitioner has no nexus with any crimes alleged by the respondents. Since the petitioner is a resident of Delhi since 2014, whereas the alleged offences are within the territorial jurisdiction of the state of Andhra Pradesh, as per the decision of this High Court passed on 15th July, 2022 in W.P.No.3568/2022 in Udathu Suresh and the State of A.P, the proceedings in Rowdy Sheet opened against him are liable to be quashed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conditions in APPM Order No.601 are not applicable to the case of the petitioner, and therefore, opening and pendency of rowdy sheet against the petitioner is illegal. It is further argued that retention of the history sheet against the petitioner by simply endorsing on the report/letter of the S.H.O by a single line order and forwarding to petitioner through Whatsapp is illegal and the rowdy sheet cannot continue against the petitioner. He further submitted that mechanical approach of the respondents in opening and retaining the same is in violation of the guidelines and the decision of this High Court and the decisions of the Supreme Court in Menaka Gandhi Vs Union of Indial, (1978) 1 SCC 248 , Sant Raj and another Vs O.P Single and others, (1985) 2 SCC 349 and A.P Aggarwal Vs Government of NCT of Delhi, (2000) 1 SCC 600 . Therefore, he further submitted to allow the petition and quash the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submitted that opening and continuation of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner is well within the parameters in the APPM Order No.601. In this regard, he further submitted that actual pendency of case(s) is not required to open and continue a rowdy sheet against a person and that even after disposal of the case, if the facts and circumstances demand, to maintain peace, public order and security, person who habitually commits offence(s), rowdy sheet can be opened and continued and the petition may be dismissed. He further submitted that in the present case, though some cases are closed, some cases are still pending, and therefore, it is not correct for the petitioner to contended that there are no cases against him and opening and the maintaining rowdy sheet against him is illegal. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no prior notice was given to the petitioner before the opening the rowdy sheet. 8. Here it is to appropriate to mention A.P Police Station House Management Manual Part-I Vol.11b, Standing Order No.601 as follows: “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. 1. Persons, who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbances to public order and security. 2. Persons bound over under sections 106, 107, 108(1) amd 110(e) and (g) of CrPC. 3. Persons who have been convicted more than once in tow consecutive years under sections 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad city police Act or under section 3 clause 12 of the AP Town Nuisances Act. 4. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks including offences U/sec.354-A, B C and 354D IPC. 5. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offence of Rape (376, .375, A,C D. E). 6. Persons who have been charge sheeted unde the offences of POCSO Act, 2012 and Acid Attacks (326A and 326B of IPC). 7. Rowdy sheets for the rowdies residing one police station areas but found frequenting the other Police Stations area, can be maintained at all such police stations. 8. Persons who intimidate by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means to part with movable or immovable properties or in the habit of collecting money by extortion from shopkeepers, traders and other residents including “loan sharks”. 9. Persons who incite, instigate and participate in communal/caste or political riots. 10. Persons detained under the AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 for a period of 6 months or more. 11. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of assault on public servants, under Arms Act and such other offences punishable with imprisonment of 2 years or more. 12. 11. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of assault on public servants, under Arms Act and such other offences punishable with imprisonment of 2 years or more. 12. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of murder and attempt to murder (302 and 307 IPC) 13. Persons on whom charge sheets file under the offence of chain snatching. 14. Persons who are convicted under the respresentation of people Act, 1951 for rigging, carrying away, damaging ballot paper, boxes and polling material.” Standing Order 602 (2) as follows: “Merely because a suspect/rowdy, having a history sheet, is not figuring as accused in the previous 5 years after the last case in which he was involved, it should not preclude the SP/DCP/CP to continue his history sheet if SP/DCP/CP is of the considered view that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or one affecting peace and tranquility in the areas or the victims is not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him”. 9. The validity of the said provision has been challenged before this High Court in W.P.No.3568 of 2022. The Police Standing Order to the extent of opening and continuation of rowdy sheet, suspect sheet, history sheet etc., on the basis and that basis the surveillance of the individual in terms of chapter 37 of the said Standing Orders is declared as void. Against the said order and the similar orders in the batch of other writ petitions, writ appeal was preferred before the division bench of this High Court in W.A.No.674 of 2022. Pending the disposal of the writ appeal, I.A.No.1 of 2022 was filed therein to suspend the order impugned in writ appeal. On 12.09.2022 an interim order suspending the impugned order was pass in I.A.No.1 of 2022 at para no.22 as follows: “Having regard to the prima facie findings, arrived at by us, in the preceding paragraph, the Order of the learned Single Judge in declaring the Standing Orders of A.P Police Manual/A.P Police Standing Orders to the extent of opening/continuation of rowdy sheets/history sheets/suspect sheets and the surveillance of an individual (in terms of Chapter 37 of the above said Standing Order) as void, is hereby suspended. However, the rowdy sheets/history sheets/suspect sheets, which are closed pursuant to the Orders of the learned Single Judge, shall not be reopened until further orders. However, the rowdy sheets/history sheets/suspect sheets, which are closed pursuant to the Orders of the learned Single Judge, shall not be reopened until further orders. It is made clear that, the Appellants are at liberty to open rowdy sheets/history sheets/suspect sheets if there is any fresh material in respect of those individuals. Further, as an interim measure, surveillance of a suspect or an accused shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders. Summoning of an accused or any person to the Police Station should only be on a prior notice issued in accordance with the provisions of law/order. It is needless to mention that the Police shall not indulge in visiting the houses of the suspect/accused during night time, except to execute the order of arrest or apprehend the suspect/accused if he is required in any crime registered or if it is permissible under any law or statute. Collection of finger prints etc., shall be in accordance with the procedure established by law, as held by the learned Judge.” 10. Therefore, the validity of Standing Order No.601 of the Police Standing Orders is still in force. In the present case, the legality of the continuation of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner is to be examined in the light of the said provision. 11. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, a reading of the Orders No.601 and 602 (2) it is clear that the contention raised by the petitioner that the continuation of a history sheet against him is illegal and against the procedure is not tenable. The continuation of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner can be reviewed by the appropriate authority periodically and take a fresh view depending on the facts and circumstances existing as on that date. Merely because the petitioner is residing elsewhere, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not visiting any place within the state of A.P. As such, it is open for the appropriate authority to consider to continue or discontinue the rowdy sheet against the petitioner by following the due procedure contemplated in that regard. This Court in writ petition cannot evaluate the facts situation and interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction of the concerned authority, unless exercise of such jurisdiction is patently illegal and/or beyond the jurisdiction of that authority. This Court in writ petition cannot evaluate the facts situation and interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction of the concerned authority, unless exercise of such jurisdiction is patently illegal and/or beyond the jurisdiction of that authority. Except the averments, there is no material to substantiate the relief in the petition. As such, there is no merit in the writ petition. The petitioner is at liberty to make any representation to the concerned authority which reviews the rowdy sheet, if he wishes to seek termination of the rowdy sheet opened against him and on such representation made, the concerned authority shall take a decision on the representation within 15 days there from. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.