Disposed

Geddada Nagaraju, v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Telangana HC22 Aug 2012WP/3983/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging the legality of a rowdy sheet opened in the petitioner's name. The court directed the First Respondent to file an application for closure in accordance with Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Police Standing Orders, as no cases were pending against the petitioner at the time.

What did the court decide?

Directed the First Respondent to consider an application filed by the petitioner for closing the rowdy sheet in accordance with Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Police Standing Orders.

Geddada Nagaraju, Vs The Deputy Superintendent of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 3983 OF 2012

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent no.2 in opening rowdy sheet no.443 in the name of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct respondent no.2 not to close the said rowdy sheet.

¶4

2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he was implicated in four criminal cases and in all the said cases, he was acquitted and that though no cases are pending against him, the respondents are not closing the rowdy sheet opened in his name.

¶5

3. The second respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and stating that the petitioner was involved in seven cases out of which two cases ended in acquittal; one case was compromised; in another case, fine was imposed on the petitioner, and in other three cases, the petitioner was bound over for his good behaviour; that in view of the involvement of the petitioner in the above criminal case, it became incumbent on the part of the respondents to curb and curtail unlawful activities, and so, the rowdy sheet was opened; that except opening of the rowdy sheet, the respondent never harassed or

¶6

threatened or interfered with life and liberty of the petitioner by calling him to police station.

¶7

4. Heard both sides.

¶8

5. Admittedly, rowdy sheet was opened in the name of the petitioner when he was involved in the aforesaid cases.

¶9

The rowdy sheet was extended up to 31.12.2012. As on today, no case is pending against the petitioner. Therefore, appropriate decision has to be taken by the first respondent in accordance with law for closing the rowdy sheet opened in the name of the petitioner. For that purpose, the petitioner is at liberty to file an application before the first respondent, and on filing of the same, the same shall have to be considered in accordance with law especially Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Police Standing Orders.

¶10

6. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶11

____________________

¶12

JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶13

22.8.2012 DRK

¶14

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO. 3983 OF 2012

¶16

22.08.2012

Geddada Nagaraju, v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geddada Nagaraju, v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Saravaiah Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

Sayyad Khadar Bhasha Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology (Vigilance)

A.Elagonda, Vs Sri a.K.Khan

Dr. C. Vijay Kumar Jhamnani Vs The Principal Secretary

Ramisetty Sobha, W/o, Chenna Kesavulu Vs The Assistant Director Mines and Geology (Vigilence)

Tangella Sarada, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh