The single judge dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking quashing of a rowdy sheet, finding no merits in the claim after noting that no such sheet was actually maintained on the police file.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs and miscellaneous petitions standing dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.6831 of 2014
ORDER:
There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
The prayer sought in the writ petition is as under:
“… to pass an order, direction or a writ particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent No.3 in maintaining rowdy/history sheet against the petitioner on the basis of one single case vide Crime No.236 of 2013 which is pending investigation is illegal, arbitrary, in violation of standing orders of police manual and unconstitutional. Consequently, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to close the rowdy/history sheet being maintained by him against the petitioner, immediately and forthwith.”
Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, brought to the notice of this Court that no rowdy sheet/suspect sheet whatsoever has been opened against the petitioner on the file of Begumpet Police Station and, in fact, the petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.1634 of 2013.
In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.
Date: 01.11.2019. ES
_____________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance of a rowdy sheet against the petitioner by Respondent No.3 was legal and constitutional given that no such sheet exists on the records.
Whether to discharge the petitioner's writ petition seeking quashing of the rowdy sheet.
Petitioner
Respondent No.3
P. KESHAVA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
