ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 3 in opening and continuing Rowdy Sheet No. 39/ SD-SPT/2015 dated 21-07-2015 against the petitioner in Chinna Koduru Police Station, Chinna Koduru, Siddipet District, as illegal, colorable exercise of power, contrary to the settled principles of legal position and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to close the Rowdy Sheet No. 39/SD-SPT/2015 dated 21-07-2015 against the petitioner in Chinna Koduru Police Station, Chinna Koduru Siddipet District and pass such other order or orders…” 2. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Gillella, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of all the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present Writ Petition has been instituted to challenge the action of respondent No. 3 in opening and continuing the rowdy sheet dated 21.07.2015 against the petitioner. It is contended that between the years 2014 and 2019, thirteen criminal cases were registered against the petitioner. Of these, ten cases have either culminated in acquittal or were amicably settled before the Lok Adalat. As on date, only three criminal cases remain pending against the petitioner. The learned counsel argues that, in the absence of any finding or material to show that the petitioner’s alleged conduct disturbed public peace or tranquility, or that it satisfies the criteria stipulated under Standing Order No. 601-A of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, the continued maintenance of the suspect/rowdy sheet is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the petitioner’s fundamental rights. Hence, indulgence of this Court is sought to direct the closure of the said rowdy sheet. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, relying on written instructions, submits that the petitioner has indeed been involved in several criminal cases; however, he fairly concedes that except for three pending cases, the rest have concluded as stated by the petitioner. It is further admitted that no fresh criminal case has been registered against the petitioner since the year 2021. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, relying on written instructions, submits that the petitioner has indeed been involved in several criminal cases; however, he fairly concedes that except for three pending cases, the rest have concluded as stated by the petitioner. It is further admitted that no fresh criminal case has been registered against the petitioner since the year 2021. Nevertheless, the learned Government Pleader contends that, considering the petitioner’s past conduct and its alleged adverse impact on public peace and order, the concerned police authorities have, from time to time, sought and obtained permission to extend the rowdy sheet to monitor the petitioner’s activities. Therefore, it is argued that the petitioner’s challenge to the continuation of the rowdy sheet is untenable and that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. 6. As per the record, it is undisputed that the rowdy sheet against the petitioner was opened in 2015 and has been periodically renewed and maintained by the concerned police authorities. The justification offered is that the petitioner was involved in several criminal cases, thereby warranting surveillance under the category of “habitual offenders” or “rowdies” as contemplated under Standing Order 601-A. 7. It is a well-settled proposition of law that a rowdy sheet can be opened and maintained only against individuals, whose habitual conduct involves breach of peace, violence, intimidation, or offences involving moral turpitude, and not merely on account of suspicion or isolated incidents. In Puttagunta Pasi @ Penta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada & Anr., 1998 (3) ALT 55 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court categorically held that opening or continuation of a rowdy sheet without credible evidence of habitual criminality amounts to an abuse of power and is unsustainable in law. Similarly, in Shaik Mahboob v. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad & Secunderabad & Ors., 1990 (1) APLJ 363 , this Court emphasized that the review of a suspect or rowdy sheet is mandatory and must be conducted at least once every six months, as required by Standing Order 601-B of the A.P. Police Manual. Failure to conduct such review renders the continuation of the rowdy sheet illegal. 8. Failure to conduct such review renders the continuation of the rowdy sheet illegal. 8. Furthermore, judicial precedents have consistently held that when an individual is not involved in any criminal activity for a continuous period of three years, the rowdy sheet must be closed; hence, continuation of rowdy sheet beyond the statutory or reasonable period, without fresh material indicating potential for disturbance of public peace, constitutes a violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the instant case, the material produced by the respondents shows that although periodic reviews were claimed to have been conducted based on police requisitions, there is no substantive indication of any fresh or contemporaneous activity warranting the continuation of the rowdy sheet after 2021. As per the written instructions and the material annexed to the record, it is evident that the rowdy sheet was initially opened against the petitioner and, upon requisitions made by the concerned Police, has been periodically renewed for further periods. The review proceedings, as reflected in the documents, indicate that the competent authority considered the proposals submitted by the Station House Officer and approved the continuation of the rowdy sheet. The communication exchanged between the proposing officer and the competent authority is extracted hereunder for better appreciation: 10. A perusal of the above communication reveals that the proposing officer, except for a cursory remark stating that the “rowdy sheeter is active and requires close surveillance as a preventive measure,” has not furnished any substantive reason or supporting material justifying the continuation of the rowdy sheet. Interestingly, though nine criminal cases were referred to in the communication, only two Crime Nos. 134 of 2017 and 195 of 2019, which are presently pending against the petitioner, have been specifically mentioned. There is a conspicuous omission of Crime No. 78 of 2021, for which no explanation has been provided. 11. Moreover, the competent authority, without assigning any independent reasons or demonstrating due application of mind, merely endorsed the proposal with the note, “Permitted-continued,” thereby authorizing the further continuation of the rowdy sheet. Such an endorsement, made without examination of the relevant facts, material evidence, or the petitioner’s conduct post-2019, manifests a mechanical exercise of power. 12. 11. Moreover, the competent authority, without assigning any independent reasons or demonstrating due application of mind, merely endorsed the proposal with the note, “Permitted-continued,” thereby authorizing the further continuation of the rowdy sheet. Such an endorsement, made without examination of the relevant facts, material evidence, or the petitioner’s conduct post-2019, manifests a mechanical exercise of power. 12. This manner of proceeding reflects a clear deviation from the procedure mandated under Standing Order 601-B of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, which requires a periodic and reasoned review of every rowdy or suspect sheet at least once in six months. The said Standing Order obliges the competent authority to record its satisfaction, based on tangible material, that the individual continues to pose a threat to public peace or order before renewing the rowdy sheet. The absence of such reasoning or supporting material in the present case demonstrates non-application of mind, rendering the order arbitrary and continuation of the sheet unsustainable in law. 13. Such an action directly infringes the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to live with dignity and without unwarranted surveillance or stigma. The Supreme Court in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1963 SC 1295 ) and Gobind v. State of M.P. ( 1975 (2) SCC 148 ) has emphatically held that surveillance and police watch must not transgress the bounds of reasonableness and must have a nexus with public order or prevention of crime. Any mechanical or indefinite continuation of such surveillance violates the constitutional guarantees of privacy and liberty. 14. Furthermore, in Puttagunta Pasi @ Penta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada & Anr. ( 1998 (3) ALT 55 (DB)) and Shaik Mahboob v. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad & Secunderabad & Ors. ( 1990 (1) APLJ 363 ), this Court underscored that maintenance of a rowdy sheet without credible evidence of habitual criminality, or without timely and reasoned review, amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power. The Court further held that if a person has not been involved in any offence for a considerable period typically three years, the rowdy sheet must be closed. 15. The Court further held that if a person has not been involved in any offence for a considerable period typically three years, the rowdy sheet must be closed. 15. In light of these settled principles, the present record unmistakably reveals that both the proposing officer and the competent authority have acted in a routine and perfunctory manner, without any contemporaneous material to justify the continuation of the rowdy sheet. Such mechanical action not only offends the principles of natural justice but is also ex facie arbitrary and unconstitutional, falling foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The continuance of the rowdy sheet, therefore, cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and is liable to be declared illegal. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the legal principles laid down by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kharak Singh (supra), Gobind (supra), Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India ( (2017) 10 SCC 1 ), and Shaik Mahboob (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following directions for uniform compliance throughout the State of Telangana: A. The Director General of Police, Telangana, shall forthwith issue a circular / standing instruction to all Commissioners of Police, Superintendents of Police, and Station House Officers in the State, emphasizing strict adherence to Standing Orders 601-A and 601-B of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual while opening, maintaining, reviewing, or closing suspect/rowdy sheets. B. (a) A rowdy sheet shall be opened only upon a written proposal from the Station House Officer, specifying clear and cogent reasons, the antecedents of the individual, and the necessity for surveillance in the interest of public order. (b) The proposal shall be scrutinized and approved in writing by the competent authority, with reference to the specific clause of Standing Order 601-A invoked. (c) No person shall be categorized as a “rowdy sheeter” unless there is credible material indicating habitual involvement in offences of violence, intimidation, or breach of peace. Isolated incidents or mere suspicion shall not constitute valid grounds. C. (a) Every rowdy or suspect sheet shall be reviewed once in six months, as mandated by Standing Order 601-B. (b) The reviewing authority shall record specific reasons in writing, demonstrating due application of mind and reliance on contemporary material. Isolated incidents or mere suspicion shall not constitute valid grounds. C. (a) Every rowdy or suspect sheet shall be reviewed once in six months, as mandated by Standing Order 601-B. (b) The reviewing authority shall record specific reasons in writing, demonstrating due application of mind and reliance on contemporary material. (c) Any endorsement such as “Permitted,” “Continued,” or “Renewed,” without reasons or supporting material, shall be deemed invalid and contrary to law. (d) The absence of a proper six-monthly review shall automatically render the continuation of such sheet illegal. D. (a) Where an individual has not been involved in any criminal activity for three consecutive years, or where there exists no credible evidence of continued threat to public peace, the rowdy sheet shall be forthwith closed by the competent authority. (b) Closure shall be formally recorded in the station register, with intimation to the individual concerned, if necessary. E. The Police Department shall ensure that the maintenance or renewal of rowdy/suspect sheets does not infringe upon the fundamental right to personal liberty, dignity, and privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the right to equality under Article 14. Surveillance or police watch shall be preventive, not punitive, and must always have a rational nexus with public order or the prevention of crime, as affirmed in Kharak Singh and Gobind (supra). F. The DGP shall ensure that supervisory officers at every level maintain personal accountability for non-compliance with these directions. Instances of mechanical renewal, non-review, or arbitrary continuation of rowdy sheets shall entail disciplinary action against the officers responsible. (a) The Director General of Police shall establish a State-level oversight mechanism to conduct annual audits of all rowdy and suspect sheets maintained across districts. (b) The audit shall verify: (i) Whether reviews were conducted as per the prescribed six-month interval. (ii) Whether renewals were supported by substantive material and recorded reasons. (iii) Whether obsolete or unjustified sheets were duly closed. (b) The audit shall verify: (i) Whether reviews were conducted as per the prescribed six-month interval. (ii) Whether renewals were supported by substantive material and recorded reasons. (iii) Whether obsolete or unjustified sheets were duly closed. G. The DGP shall further ensure that all subordinate police officers, particularly those serving as Station House Officers and Circle Inspectors, receive periodic sensitization and training regarding the constitutional limits of surveillance, the importance of human rights compliance, and the proper interpretation of Standing Orders 601-A and 601-B. H. This Court reiterates that while the police are empowered to maintain public order and prevent crime, such authority must be exercised within the bounds of law, fairness, and reasonableness. The practice of mechanically continuing rowdy sheets without tangible justification undermines the very spirit of the Constitution and erodes public confidence in the rule of law. 17. The above directions are, therefore, issued to ensure that the preventive powers of the police are exercised judiciously, transparently, and constitutionally. The Director General of Police, Telangana, shall ensure strict compliance with the above directions and file a status / compliance report before the Registrar Judicial of the High Court of Telangana and Principal Secretary (Home Department) within six months, detailing the measures taken to implement these directions and to ensure continuing adherence thereafter. 18. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, the rowdy sheet maintained against the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent Police authorities are directed to take all consequential steps for the removal of the petitioner’s name from the relevant records and registers forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.