Allowed

Mohammed Mouse , Ohouse Pasha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Dec 2020WP/16676/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the maintenance of a Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner. The Court set aside the impugned order, directing the respondents to close the Rowdy Sheet due to lack of justification and violation of fundamental rights, noting that surveillance requires lawful authorization and sufficient material.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to close the Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner.

Mohammed Mouse , Ohouse Pasha Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE S'I .^{AT HYDERfJiDOFTELANGANA} ( Jpectat Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDIYJ,ITE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND IWENi'^'-''

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

Between:

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 16676 0 F 2020

¶7

Mohammed Mouse 6 Gl-roy9e_pas.ha, S/o Late Mohammed Sultan, Aged 42 years, occ. Business, R/o-H.No.19-z-iiat7" nu, i"JiiItn corony, chandilar Baiaoari, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶8

AND

¶9

...PETITIoNER

¶10

'l . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶12

Q ]fe^{pep.uty Commissioner, of PoticeSoutn Z<jne purani Haveti,Hyderabad, T.S.}

¶13

The Station House Officer, Kamatipura Police Station, Hyderabad,'T.S.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the Respondents vide No. HS-4/1 84/2019 dated 2710612020 rejecting the withdrawal of Rowdy Sheet pending against the Petitioner and continuing Rowdy Sheet against the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and u nconstitutio na I and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to withdraw the Rowdy Sheet against the Petitioner.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleased to directthe} Respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to insist the^{presence of the Petitioner beforethe offices} of the 3rd and 4th respondents in connection^{with the rowdysheet maintained against} the petitioner^pending disposal of the^{writ petition.}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^P. VAMSHEEDHAR^REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP^{FOR HOME} The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE P'NAVEENRAO} WRIT PETI TION No.166^{76of 2020}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heardlearnedcounselforthepetitionerandlearned Assistant Government^{Pleaderfor Home'}

¶23

In this writ^{petition petitioner} IS aggrieved by^oPeningof Rowdy Sheet and continuing^{the same tilldate' Petitioner is} challenging the order^{dated 27.06.2O20passed bv the Deputy} Commissioner of^{Police, South Zone, Hyderabad-3'drespondent,} rejecting the request of^{petitionerto closethe RowdySheet.}

¶24

According to the respondents, 15^{crimes n'ereregistered} against the petitioner and therefore, Rou'dy^{Sheet rl'as validly} opened. The first crime was reported in the^{year 1995 and over a} period of time, petitioner continued to involve in crimes.

¶25

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, from the list of crimes mentioned in Paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit, petitioner was acquitted in all the crimes and no crime is pending against him. With reference to Item Nos. 14 and 1 5, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rorr,'dy Sheets are opened on special occasions such as Ganesh Chaturdi or any other important event that takes place in the City, police invoke the provisions of Section 107 ol Code of Criminal Procedure and ensure binding over orders are passed against persons on u,hom rowdy sheet is opened. This is meant to ensure that the persons with Rowdy Sheet do not indulge in crimes during special occasions. It is a preventive measure. Thus, as long as Rowdy Sheet is continued, police continue to register such crimes for the limited purpose of binding over for good conduct during special OCCASlONS.

¶26

¶27

Right to lile and liberty are sacrosanct to a person. A person is entitled to lead his life with dignity and self respect. Hc is entitled to privacy. His rights flow out of Article 21 of the Constitution ol India. Surveillance on person certainly infringes on his right to life, privacy and liberty. These rights cannot be infringed except by due process of law. Compelling public interest may require intrusion into privacy of a person but while doing so great care and caution has to be observed. Thus, if police open a rowdy sheet to keep surveillance on a person it must show justification, impelled to ensure peace and order in the society.

¶28

The scope ar-rd r,vidth of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, scope of power of police to infringe privacy of a person and scope and ambit of Police Standing Orders (for short, 'PSO) were vividly anal-',"zed and dealt with extensively by tu'o learned Judges of this Court in Mohammed Quadeer and others Vs. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and anotherr and Sunkara Satyanarayana Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department and others2. ln both these decisions it is held that PSOs are non statutory executive instructions and have no binding force of law.

¶29

7 . In Mohammed Quadeer and others (supra), it is held:

¶30

ThereJore, I hq.le no hesltdtlon whatsoeoer to reJect the plea that mete sl;l'ruelllolce^qnd watch bg the Potlce itsev u.,ould not ln-fringe the fundamental rtghts oJ o citizen. Sr,rch suruellldnce dnd. uatch whlch is ^ot d.uthorised by lqw fidA be u constltutlonal, Such suntelllance and udtch euen { lt is duthorised. bg law^but tf tt is not ln accordance wlth that ldw uould.^equallgbe u'r.co,1.stitutio'].@I."

¶31

{e^{mphasissupplied)}

¶32

7.1 In paragraph 49 of Sunkara Satyanarayaua^{(supra), learned} single Judge culled out principles on^{police surveillanceagainst}

¶33

'^{1999(3) ALD60} t lggg (o) eLT 2lg

¶34

-4-

¶35

history/ rowdy sheeters To the extent relevant, they read^as

¶36

under:

¶37

(iii) If police sunreillance is in^{accordancewith} executive/departmental^guidelines and^{notauthorisedby} statute or rules having statutory^Iorce, it^{js for thc State to} prove that surveillance does not in^anyrvaY infringc^the fLlndamental right of the^person and that^{the autholitieshavc} followed the guidelines scrupulously in^{orderingsurweiilance,}

¶38

(vi) In either case-$,hethcr policc regulations are statutor) or where they have no statutorv forcc-thcre shoulcl be sullicient material to induce the opinion that the history shcetcrs/ro\'dy sheeters shorv a <letermination to lead a lifc ol crimc rrhich lnvolves public pcacc or sccuritl' onl-r'. Mere convictions in criminal cases u,here nothing imperils the safct-v ol the societt' cannot bc regarded as \'arrange sur_veillancc under the rclevant regulatir>ns, howevcr broadl), and in whatever language the regulation might have been couchcd,

¶39

(tilt) The dbote principles that emerge Jrom od.rious blndl^g precede^ts are onlg general pdnclples. As seen lr.om va.r'lous d.ecld.ed. cd.ses of this Court, opening of hlstory sheet ot roud! sheet can be jusl'|Jled o^ly uhe^ lt ls proved beJore the Court bg the State thdt based on the releoant fidterla.l the compete^t potice olJicer ha.s apptled mi^d wlth due care and cotusldered d.ll aspects ln the light oJ the ld@ dnd then ord.ered. openlng oJ hlstory sheet or roudg sheet or ordered contlnudtlon or tetedtlon of the hlstory sheet. I^ the beginnt^g of thls .htdgne^t, <1ll the rekva t decislons oJ thts Court hdoe bee^ refefied to and those prl^clples mdg d,lso hdte lo be kept ln mlnd."

¶40

(emphasis supplied)

¶41

The Andhra Pradesh Police Manual deals with various aspects of functioning of police personnel rvhich include registration of crimes, investigation, conducting of trial and opening of rowdy sheets etc. PSO-6013 deals rvith opening ol rowdy sheet. According to Clause-A4 thereof, if a person habitually commits, attempts to commit or abet the commission of offences involving breach of peace, disturbance to public order and securitlr, a rowdy sheet can be opened to closely observe his movements and activities. According to Clause-Bs thereof, the persons who are bound over should be classilied as rowdies and rowdy sheets can be opened and continued.

¶42

3 'Order 601. The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets [Form gO] may b" opened for them under lhe orders of rhesp/DCp and ACp/SDpO. ' 'Clause-A. Persons who habrtually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of. oflences involving a breach of the peace, disuubancc to public order and security.,, 'Clau6e'8. Persons boLrnd over under Secrions 106, t07, 108(lXi) and l1O(e) (g) ofCr.p.C.

¶43

¶44

9 , Reading of extracte d provision ol^pSO-60 1-A, makes it clear that to open and continue rowdy sheet emphasis is on habitually committing offence involving breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security.

¶45

From a reading of the order rejecting the request of petitioner to close the Rowdy Sheet, it is seen that the Station House Olficer of Kamatipura Police Station, on verification of crime record of the petitioner was satis{ied that Rowdy Sheet need not be continued against him and accordingly, recommended to close the Rowdy Sheet.

¶46

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Charminar Division, under whose^jurisdiction Kamatipura Police Station fa1ls, forwarded the said report to the Deputy Commissioner of Police. Not satisfied with the report submitted by the Station House Oflicer and referring to the conviction recorded by the trial Court in Cr.No.83 o{ 2OO2 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Cocle, further report was called. In the further report, the Station House Officer, reiterated the earlier recommendation informing the Deputy Commissioner of Police that against the conviction of trial Court, the accused filed Criminal Appeals and the appellate Court acquitted the accused.

¶47

In spite of those recommendations, and though petitioner has not come to any adverse notice for the last two years, the Deputy Commissioner refused to revoke the Rowdy Sheet on^the ground that petitioner was closely associated with some criminals who are involved in crimes and inimical to the^{securityof the} State. This view of Joint Commissioner of^{Police who was} holding the Full Additional Charge of the office of^DePuty

¶48

-6-

¶49

Commissioner of Police, East Zone^{is not supported by any} material, it is vague and unsubstantiated.

¶50

From the material on record, it is seen that there is^no justification to keep the Rowdlr Sheet when no crimes are pending against the petitioner and when the Station House Officer, opined that it is not necessary to keep the Rowdy Sheet against petitioner. The impugned decision amounts to arbitrary exercise ol pou,er violating rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

¶51

Thus, the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to close the Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner. However, if police come to adverse notice of involvement of petitioner in further crimes, it is always open to them to take appropriate course of action, as warranted by law, and to keep a watch on the movements of petitioner.

¶52