Sarva Sumanth Vs The State of Telangana

Sarva Santosh, S/o. Srinivas, aged^{about 64 years,Occ. Business'} (All are residents of H.No.24-3-14, Road No.6, Sita Meadows,^Badangpet, R.R. District-58).

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, rep by its^{Principal Secretary, HomeDepartment,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Commissioner, Police Rachakonda.

¶15

Assistant Commissioner of^{Police, Vanasthalipuram.}

¶16

The lnspector of Police, Meerpet Police^{Station, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue writ, order, direction more^{particularly one in the natureof writ} of Mandamus declaring the^{action of the Respondents in openingand} maintaining rowdy sheet^{againstas illegal, arbitraryand in violation of Article14,} 19(1)(e) and 21 of the Constitutron^{of lndia, consequentlydirect the Respondent} No.4 to close the rowdy sheet^{againstpetitioners.}

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^, ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co r t may be pleased to direct Respondent No.4 not to rnsist Petitioner's presence ir the Police Station in connection with the rowdy sheet maintained against Petitro r :rs pending disposal of the writ petrtion.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. KATTA SRAVYA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

IN THE HIGH COIJRT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITYDERABAD

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

W.P. No.7962 of 2025

Between:

Date: 02.12,2o25

Sarva Sumanth and Two others

¶30

Petitioners

¶31

And

¶32

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and Three others

¶33

. Respondents

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

Questioning the action of the respon5tents in opening and maintaining rowdy sheet again sL the petitioners, petitioners hled the present writ petition with a consequential prayer to direct the respondent No.4 to close the rowciy sheet against the petitioners.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that though the crime has been registered against the petitioners in S.c. No.767 of 2077 on the file of rhe IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioners were acquitted and as on today no case is pending and no fresh case is registered against the petitioners as such, continuing the rowdy_sheet against the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary.

¶37

tavsK,J

¶38

2

¶39

On thc other hand, the respondent tlo.3, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram, hled r runter affidavit, inter alia, statrng that as per the A. P. police Manua I Ordcr No.601 as well as Circul:tr issued by the Dircctor General of l) lice, Hvderabad, rowdy-shect opr:ned againsl the pctitioners were r,l t:wcd and being maintained ancl rt is lurther submitted that if tlr rowdy-shcet is closed, thc petitioncrs may repeat the offences, as ,uch, continuing the rowdy-shcr:t is essential to watclt [heir activities.

¶40

Heard thc learned counsel lor the petitioner.; ancl the learned Assistant Govcrnment Pleader for l-lome and per.r r cd thc rnaterial made availablc on the record.

¶41

Since the categorical submission of the learrtc, counsel for the petitioners is that no case is pending as against thr ;etitioners as on date and sanrc has not been disputed by the r arncd Assistant Government Pleader for Home, this Court is of the c:.rsiclered opinion that continuation of rowdy-sheet against the pe itioncrs is not appropriate. Ilence, the respondents are direc.r c[ lo close the rowdy-sheet opened against the petitioners. Howevcr it is made clear that this order docs not preclude the respondent [< lice authority to initiate appropriate action on the petitioners, if thr:. indulge in any activity rvhich is against the public tranquitlity.

¶42

3

¶43