Disposed¶78

Seerapu Sambhasiva @ Shiva, v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Jul 2025WP/143/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rowdy sheet No. 425; opening and continuation of rowdy sheet; police surveillance and regular summons; Article 226 writ of mandamus; Section 151 CPC; East Godavari District; Anaparthi Police Station; SDPO Ramachandrapuram; crime quashed in CRL.P. No. 7498 of 2024; counter by Respondent No. 3 justifying continuation for public safeguard; writ petition disposed of without costs; miscellaneous petitions closed; Seerapu Sambhasiva @ Shiva; State of Andhra Pradesh; APHC010003442025; W.P. No. 143 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. The order text records no express direction closing the rowdy sheet. ¶59

Seerapu Sambhasiva @ Shiva, Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

APHC010003442025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 143 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Seerapu Sambhasiva @ Shiva,, S/o. Srinivas Aged about 31 years Occ. Pvt. Employee R/o. Ananparthi Village and Mandal, East^Godavari District, A.P

...Petitioner

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶14

The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District.

¶15

The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Ramachandrapuram,^EastGodavari District.

¶16

The Station House Officer, Anaparthi Police Station, East Godavari District.

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly^{oneinthenature} of writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondents especially Respondent No.3 and 4 in opening and continuing Rowdy sheet Bearing No. 425 against the petitioner based on the alleged involvement of the petitioner

¶19

herein in a crime which was quashed by this Hon’ble^{CourtvideCRL.P.No.} 7498 of 2024 and subsequently the petitioner herein has requested and intimated several times with the concerned officers to close the rowdy sheet and not to call him to police station regularly and as they have put a deaf ear and as the authorities did not remove the Rowdy sheet even after intimating, the same to them through orally and continuing the same without any reason is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 to 4 to close the Rowdy sheet bearing No. 425 opened against the petitioner in the year 2021.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to 4 to close the Rowdy sheet bearing No. 425 opened against the petitioner in the year 2021.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI CHETAN PONNURU

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR HOME

¶24

The Court made the following order:

¶25

APHC010003442025

¶26

[3396]

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶28

AT AMARAVATI

¶29

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶30

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY

¶31

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶32

PRESENT

¶33

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 143/2025

¶34

Between:

¶35

SEERAPU SAMBHASIVA @ SHIVA,, S/0. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS OCC. PVT. EMPLOYEE R/0. ANANPARTHI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P

¶36

...PETITIONER

¶37

AND

¶38

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶39

2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3.THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, RAMAC HAND RAP U RAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶40

4.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANAPARTHI POLICE STATION, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶42

...RESPONDENT{S):

¶43

1.CHETAN PONNURU

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶45

1.GPFOR HOME

¶46

The Court made the following:

¶47

ORDER:

¶48

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for:

¶49

¶50

“.... a Writ of Mandamus mandamus declaring the action of Respondents especially Respondent No. 3 and 4 in opening^and continuing Rowdy sheet Bearing No. 425 against the petitioner based on the alleged involvement of the petitioner^{hereininacrime} which was quashed by this Hon'ble Court vide CRL.P. No. 7498 of 2024 and subsequently the petitioner herein has requested^and intimated several times with the concerned officers to close the rowdy sheet and not to call him to police station regularly and as they have

¶51

¶52

¶53

pul a deaf ear and as the authorities did not remove^theRowdy sheet even after intimating, the same to them through^omityand continuing the same without any reason is l iegai.^arbitraland unjust and consequently direct the Respondent No 2 to 4 to c/osein the Rowdy sheet bearing No. 425 opened against the petitioner the year 2021.”

¶54

Sri Md.f-arooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, by cases are pending against the way of counter, would submit that, no Petitioner. in the counter filed by 3. For ready reference, the relevant para

¶55

in the counter filed by For ready reference, the relevant para

¶56

Respondent No.3, is extracted hereunder:

¶57

"7 Unless and until, a close watch is being maintained unlawful activities of the petitioners herein, there^{iseverychancethathe} nay repeat the offences. In view of the public safeguard the residents where at the petitioner is^residing the rowdy sheet has been opened and continued against them but^{nototherwise.} I submit that the allegation of the petitioner under^{the3U'se°ftherowdy} sheet, this 5th respondent police regularly summoning them and the same is causing much hardship to their personal I'fejnd to their livelihood is absolutely false, baseless and hence^denied. until change of the attitude of the petitioner, the^{rowdysheet'srevised} to continued. Mere continuation of rowdy sheets against^thepetitione in the public interest, cannot be construed that the harassing him. The contentions contras are untrue and^{herebydenied.} The allegations contras are untenable. ”

¶58

learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit. Sri Chetan Ponnuru

¶59