Gogula Poolakunta Vodde Jayanthu, Anantapur And 4 Oth v. Supt. Of Police, Anantapur Dist And 2 Others

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT W.P.No.22527 OF 2013 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader (Home) for respondents.

The petitioners pray for the following relief: ".....this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in opening and continuing the rowdy sheet vide Rowdy Sheet Nos.212 of the 1st petitioner, 226 of the 2nd petitioner, 214 of the 3rd petitioner, 245 of the 4th petitioner and 329 of the 5th petitioner respectively on the file of the I Town- Police Station, Anantapur as illegal, arbitrary and consequently quash the same and to pass...."

Counsel for petitioners, on instructions from his clients, submits that continuation of rowdy sheet against the petitioners is unwarranted, both in law and fact. Even assuming that the petitioners were involved in criminal cases, the same ended in acquittal. The petitioners are responsible citizens and are prepared to work for social service or social cause to prove the transformation and continuing to be as such.

The counsel, keeping in view the procedure followed by respondents in renewing the rowdy sheet, requests the Court to direct the Sub-Divisional Police Officer to consider the representation of petitioners while renewing the subject rowdy sheet. To prove their value to the Society and take up social cause, the counsel submits that petitioners volunteer to do social service as may be intimated by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer.

The petitioners by stating so have persuaded this Court to direct the Sub-Divisional Police Officer to receive representation of petitioners and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer considers entrusting social service/ cause to petitioners for undertaking the same. The petitioners are given liberty to do social service and prove their utility in the locality/ society. As to the representation, this Court in similar circumstances directed the Sub-Divisional Police Officer to consider representations on renewing the rowdy sheet. Hence, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer is directed to take note of the circumstances as on date while reviewing the rowdy sheet challenged in the writ petition. The petitioners are given liberty to file explanation/ representation within two weeks from today by enclosing copy of this order.

This Court has no reason to doubt that as and when such explanation/ representation is filed by the petitioners, the same is examined in the light of the law laid down by this Court in W.P.No.4688 of 2012, which was disposed of on 16.03.2017 and in the judgments reported in SUNKARA SATYANARAYANA V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH1 AND B. SATYANARAYANA REDDY V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH2. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. _____________ S. V. BHATT, J 02nd January, 2018 Lrkm 1 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP) 2 2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 38 = 2004(2) ALT (Crl.) 115