IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

WRIT PETITION Nos: 21247, 26239, 31949, 32683 & 40632 of 2016, 11468, 31311 of 2017, 3721, 8473 of 2019, 6144, 19071, 23238, 23246, 23665 of 2020, 3919, 4212, 7309, 17453, 20139, 20220, 25363, 25448, 25451, 30789, 31142, 31212, 31405 of 2021, 1802, 2007, 2634, 3568, 3588, 3647, 4010, 4461, 4814, 5128, 5322, 5573, 5633, 5707, 5776, 5811, 6048, 6107, 6228, 6281, 6351, 6364, 6393, 6683, 6713, 6797, 6948, 7202, 7543, 7832 of 2022

W.P. No. 21247 of 2016

Between:

Marella Ramanjaneyulu @ Vijay, S/o. Anjaneyulu, Aged about 37 years, H.No.69/205-A, Peddageri, Joharapuram Village, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
1. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
1. The Circle Inspector of Police, I Town P.S., Kurnool, Kurnool District.

...RESPONDENTS

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 26063 OF 2016)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to remove the petitioner's name from the list of Rowdy sheet Register maintained by 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition, in the interest of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI, R. RAMANJANEYULU

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No: 26239 of 2016

Between:

1. M.D. Basha, S/o. Khalendar Sab, aged 58 years, Resident of Pargi Village and Mandal, Anantapur District - Andhra Pradesh P. Basheer, S/o. Rasheed Sab, aged 38 years Resident of Pargi Village and
Mandal, Anantapur District Andhra Pradesh P. Mahboob Khan, S/o. P. Ahmed Khan aged 45 years, Resident of Pargi Village
and Mandal, Anantapur District Andhra Pradesh
1. K. Shahnavaz, S/o. K. Mahumud Sab, aged 43 years Resident of Pargi Village and Mandal, Anantapur District - Andhra Pradesh
1. P. Abdul Rawuf, S/o. Abdul Azeez, aged 39 years, Resident of Pargi Village and
Abdul Nawdi, 670. Abdul Azeez, aged 55 years, Resident of Pargi Village and Mandal, Anantapur District Andhra Pradesh K. Sikandar Basha, S/o. K. Abdul Rahim, aged 35 years, Resident of Pargi Vil
Mandal, Anantapur District Andhra Pradesh
1. Abdul Mannan, S/o. M.D. Basha, aged 25 years, Resident of Pargi Village and Mandal, Anantapur District Andhra Pradesh
1. Abdul Vakil, S/o. M.D. Basha, aged 26 years, Resident of Pargi Village and
Mandal, Anantapur District Andhra Pradesh 10. P. Dastagir Khan, S/o. P. Abdul Khan, aged 41 years, Resident of Pargi Village and Mandal, Anantapur District Andhra Pradesh

...PETITIONERS

AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad 22.
The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Anantapur District? $\overline{2}$
The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Penukonda Anantapur District The Inspector of Police, Hindupur Rural Circle Hindupur, Anantapur District The Sub-Inspector of Police, Parigi Police
1. Mr. K. Hanumantha Raya, previously working as Mandal Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Parigi Mandal Anantapur District, presently working as A.O.,
Minimum Marian Paramata Paramata Paramata, Presently Working as Paramata. Mr. D.S. Lokesh Kumar, IAS., previously working as District Collector, Anantapur District, presently working as Director, Deptt. Narayanguda, Hydebabad.
1. Mr. A. Venkatesu, working as Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda Division, Anantapur District
1. Mr. Ramakoteshwara Rao, previously working as Deputy, Superintendent of Police, Penukonda, Anantapur District, presently working at Vijayawada, Krishna District
1. Mr. K. Venugopal, previously working as Circle Inspector, Of Police, Hindupur Rural Police Station, Hindupur, Anantapur District, presently working at Kuppam, Chittoor District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue and appropriate Writ, Direction or Order declaring the action of the respondents in opening against the petitioners herein Rowdy Sheets No. 51/AN, 52/AN, 53/AN, 54/AN, 55/AN, 56/AN, 57/AN, 58/AN, 59/AN & 60/AN, pursuant to the Proceedings/Orders of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Penukonda bearing C.No. 486/Genl.DSPO-P/2013, dated 12-11-2013, and maintaining the same at the Police Station, Parigi, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional, and consequently quash the same in the interests of justice.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 32456 OF 2016)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation/ continuance of Rowdy Sheets No. 51/AN, 52/AN, 53/AN, 54/AN, 55/AN, 56/AN, 57/AN, 58/AN, 59/AN & 60/AN, opened pursuant to the Proceedings/ Orders of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Penukonda bearing C.No. 486/Genl.DSPO-P/2013, dated 12-11-2013, and maintained at the Police Station, Parigi, Anantapur District, in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 54244 OF 2017)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the hearing of the above writ petition No. 26239 of 2016 in the interest of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. O. MANOHER REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR HOME

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 10: ---

W.P. No: 31949 of 2016

Between:

Pulusu Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o. P. China Rami Reddy, Age: 35 years, R/o 9-223/C, First Line, Jayanti Nagar S.V.N. Colony Extension, Guntur Town, Guntur District. ...PETITIONER

AND

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
1. Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.
1. Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, Guntur.
1. Circle Inspector of Police, Macherla Rural, Guntur District.
1. Station House Officer, Veldurthy Police Station, Guntur District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent authorities in opening and continuing to operate the rowdy sheet against the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to close the rowdy sheet / history sheet against the petitioner forthwith.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 39513 OF 2016)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from summoning the petitioner either to the Police Station or to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Guntur or intrude into the private life of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI, K S MURTHY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No: 32683 of 2016

Between:

Shaik Mastan Basha, S/o. Sandani, aged about 27 years, Occ: Petty Business, R/o Janardhana Colony, Kandukur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District.
The Station House Officer, Kandukur Police Station, Prakasam District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondent No.2 herein in no taking any action on the representation dt. 2-8-2016 submitted by the petitioner for closure of the Rowdy History Sheet No. 642/2006 opened against him in the 3rd respondent police station inspite of in S.C.No. 329/2007 dt. 20-3-2009 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, as being illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent police to close the Rowdy Sheet No. 642/2006 to enable the petitioner to lead happy and peaceful life.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 40454 OF 2016)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to directing the respondent No.3 herein not to call the petitioner to the police station or in any manner interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner herein, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No: 40632 of 2016

Between:

Bharatam Dhanunjaya Rao, S/o. Dharma Raju, aged about 31 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Opposite to Ammavari Temple Back side of HP Gas Godown, Arasavelli, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh State.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, A.P. Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.
Divisional Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. Inspector of Police, Srikakulam II Town Police Station, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.
1. Station House Officer, Srikakulam II Town Police Station, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents in opening of the Rowdy Sheet No. 118 of 2016 dated 1.4.2016 on the file of II Town Police Station, Srikakulam against the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjustified, without jurisdiction and in violation of the Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders against the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to quash the rowdy sheet by directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's liberty in any manner in the interest of justice.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 50049 OF 2016)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents 2 to 5 not to enforce in any manner the Rowdy-Sheet No 118/2016 dated 01.4.2016 opened against the petitioner including calling the petitioner to the Police Station and not to make domiciliary visits to the petitioner's house, pending the disposal of the main writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. G. RAJKUMAR

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 11468 of 2017

Between:

Korada Rajababu, S/o. late Surya Prakash Rao, aged 44 years, R/o Vemulavalasa Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Bheemili Sub-Office, Visakhapatnam District. ...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madhuravada, Visakhapatnam. The Station House Officer, Anandapuram, Visakhapatnam.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner opened on 2-6-2007 by proceedings C.No.26/History Sheet/SDPO-AKP/2007 dt.2-6-2007 of the 2nd Respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, against the Police Standing Order 742, unconstitutional, violative of Art.14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently quash the said proceedings C.No.26/History Sheet/SDPO-AKP/2007 dt.2-6-2007 of the 2nd Respondent in opening of rowdy sheet and its continuace against the petitioner.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 14270 OF 2017)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the said proceedings C.No.26/History Sheet/ SDPO-AKP/2007 dt.2-6-2007 of the 2nd Respondent in opening of rowdy sheet against the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. P B VIJAY KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 31311 of 2017

Between:

C. Mohan Reddy, S/o. C.Konda Reddy, Aged: 57 years, Occ: Driver, R/o H.no.23/67, Old Town, Guntakal, Anantapur District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by it's Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Anantapur District. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Anantapur District.
The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Guntakal, Anantapur District. The Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Guntakal, Anantapur District.
1. The Station House Officer, Rural Police Station, Guntakal, Anantapur District.

...RESPONDENTS

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 39013 OF 2017)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents 4 and 5 not to harass the petitioner by calling him to the police station regularly without any case being pending, pending disposal of the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI, N. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 3721 of 2019

Between:

Koppisetti Venkata Ramana, S/o. Sri Manikyam Hindu, Age 43 years, Occ. Business R/o. Door No.9-10, Amaravadi Gardens Boon School Road, Ramanaiahpeta Kakinada Rural Mandal, E.G. District.

AND

...PETITIONER

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department The State of Aldina Fladesh, Nop. By Ref. State State, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kakinada, East Godavari District. The Inspector of Police, Sarpavaram PS, Kakinada Rural Mandal East Godavari District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in opening 'Suspect Sheet' against the Petitioner on the file of the 4th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the Respondents to drop all further proceedings by withdrawing the 'Suspect Sheet' against the Petitioner forthwith.

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to summon the Petitioner to the police station pursuant to the 'Suspect Sheet' opened against him on the file of the 4th Respondent, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. N. SIVA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 8473 of 2019

Between:

Itha Venkata Subba Rao, S/o. Veeri Setty, Age 54 years, Occ General Provisions and Groceries Shop, R/o. 1st Lane, Pedda Dornala Village, Post and Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Markapur Sub-Division, Markapur, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh.
1. The Circle Inspector of Police, Y. Palem Circle, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh.
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dornala Police Station, Dornala, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh.

...RESPONDENTS

declaring the action of the $3^{rd}$ respondent in ordering the $5^{th}$ respondent to $i$ . open Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner vide proceedings in C.No.03/Rowdy-SDOM/2018, dt.13-05-2018 and also continuing the Rowdy Sheet against him till date as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, non application of mind, colorable exercise of powers besides violative of the Police Standing Order No.601 of AP Police Manual (Part-I and II) and also the Arts.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and
consequently, direct the respondents to discontinue the name of the petitioner ii. form the list of Rowdy Sheeter on the file of the 5th respondent.

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orders of the 3rd petitioner issued through proceedings vide C.No.03/Rowdy-SDOM/2018, dt.13-05-2018.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. PEETA RAMAN

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No: 6144 of 2020

Between:

Pudi Yugandhar, S/o. Sambasiva Rao, Aged about 22 years, R/o. D. No.6-148/2, Gollikrishna Rao Street, Opp. Subham Kalyana Mandapam, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

...PETITIONER

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The Superintendent of Police, Krishna District at Machilipatnam.</
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nuzvid Sub Division, Nuzvid, Krishna District.
1. The Inspector of Police, Hanuman Junction, Stride, Landman Junction, Krishna District.
2. The Station House Officer, Hanuman Junction, Krishna District. The Inspector of Police, Hanuman Junction Circle, Krishna District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the continuation of the rowdy sheet vide C.No.891/Dis/SDO-N/2018, dated. 16.05.2018 without being any conviction against the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and also against the provisions of Police Standing Orders and also violation of Articles, 14,19 and 21 of The Constitution of India and consequently same may be closed.

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to dispose of the representations of the petitioner Dt.15.03.2019 and 10.05.2019 in accordance with law, pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. CH VENKAT RAMAN

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P.No. 19071 of 2020

Between:

Veeradasu Sudhakar Babu, S/o. Elia, Aged about 37 years, Occ. News Reporter, R/o. Dolasnagar, Tadepalli, Guntur District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
The Superintendent of Police, Guntur District at Guntur. Sub-Divisional Police Officer, North Sub-Division, Guntur Urban, Guntur, Guntur District.
1. Inspector of Police, Mangalagiri Rural Circle, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 5. The Station House Officer, Tadepalli Police Station, Tadepalli, Guntur District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the $3rd$ respondent in issuing the notice dated 9.10.2020 informing the petitioner that the History (Rowdy) sheet No.513 on the rolls of 5th respondent police station against the petitioner which was opened under the proceedings Rc.No.43/BCs/SDPO-NORTH/GTR(U)/2017 of the 3rd respondent is being continued as illegal, arbitrary and thereby, not only violating the Police Standing Orders but also the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution of India and consequently, quash the proceedings Rc.No.43/BCs/SDPO-NORTH/GTR(U)/2017 of the $3^{rd}$ respondent.

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim suspension of the proceedings Rc.No.43/ BCs/SDPO-NORTH/GTR(U)/2017 issued by the 3rd respondent include appearance of the petitioner before the 5th respondent police station, pending disposal of the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. B V ANJANEYULU

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 23238 of 2020

Between:

N.Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy R/o. Flat No.301, Srinivasa Shikaram Apts., Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam, A.P.

...PETITIONER

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
1. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
The Assistant Commissioner of Police (East), Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. The Station House Officer, IV Town (L and O), Visakhapatnam City.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner vide proceedings C.No.172/Genl/ACP-E/2017 on the file of 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and

further direct the respondents to immediately close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner vide proceedings C.No.172/Genl/ACP-E/2017.

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim direction directing the 2nd respondent to immediately consider the representation dated 4.2.2019 for closure of the rowdy sheet opened vide proceedings C.No.172/Genl/ACP-E/2017, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. C. RAGHU

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 23246 of 2020

Between:

Chintakayala Ganeswara Rao @ Ganesh, S/o. Nagaraju Occ. Private employee, aged about 33 years, R/o. D.No.8-56, Makavarapalem (V and M), Vishakapatnam District.

...PETITIONER/S

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The Director General of Police, Office at Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Superintendent of Police, Vishakapatnam, Vishakapatnam D
$4.$ The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anakapalli Sub-Division, Vishakapatnam District.
1. The Station House Officer, Anakapalli Town PS, Vishakapatnam District. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the respondent Nos. 4 to 5 in opening and continuing the History sheet No.65/2020 opened on Vide C.No.21/History sheet/SDPO-AKP/2010 Dt. 07.12.2010 against the petitioner without any periodical review as illegal arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents 4 and 5 to close the History sheet No.65/2020 opened on Vide C.No.21/History sheet/SDPO-AKP/2010 Dt. 07.12.2010 against the petitioner in the interest of justice.

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 4 and 5 not to interfere in any manner with the petitioner in connection with History sheet No.65/2020 opened on Vide C.No.21/History sheet/SDPO-AKP/2010 Dt:07.12.2010 in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the main writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P.No: 23665 of 2020

Between:

1. Shaik Irfan alias Ippu, S/o.Shaik Riyaz, aged 24 years, R/o.Dr.No.49-41-7, Chinnuru, NGGO Colony, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam.
1. Mohammed Izaz Ahamed, S/o.Mustafa, aged 28 years, R/o.Dr.No.49-43-7, Chinnuru, NGGO Colony, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam.

Mohammed Ishaq alias Bablu, S/o.Mohammed Akbar, aged 22 years, R/o.Dr.No.49-43-7/5, Chinnuru, NGGO Colony, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam. ...PETITIONERS

AND

1. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
The Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. The Station House Officer, IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam.
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Principal Secretary, Home Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi at Amaravathi.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in continuing the rowdy sheet C.No.51/GEN1/ACP-E2018 opened on 05.02.2018 against the Petitioners on the file of the Station House Officer, IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents to close the rowdy sheet on the file of the Station House Officer, IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam against the Petitioners in the interest of justice.

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct Respondents to take immediate steps to close the rowdy sheet the C.No.51/GEN1/ACP-E2018 opened on 05.02.2018 against the Petitioner on the file of the Station House Officer, IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of Justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. G. RAMA GOPAL

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 3919 of 2021

Between:

Vaddamanu Chandra Sekar Reddy, S/o.Rami Reddy, Aged. 46 years, Vempalli Road, Yerraguntla Town, Kadapa District.

...PETITIONER

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District, Kadapa.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, direction or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the Orders in R.C.No.27/R.S./SDPO-KDP/14, dt.25-9-2014 issued by the Respondent No. 3 and there by open rowdy sheet No. 350 against the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, Violation PSO 601 and in violation of Art. 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequences set aside the Rowdy sheet no.350 maintaining by Respondent No. 3.

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to call the petitioner to their police station by suspending the Operation of Rowdy sheet no-350 maintaining by Respondent No. 3 pending disposal above Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI, HARINATH REDDY SOMA

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 4212 of 2021

Between:

Annapureddy Brahma Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy, Aged about 64 years, R/o. H.No.11-774/A, Balaji Nagar, 1/6, Nagaralu, Guntur, Guntur District.

...PETITIONER

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Village, Tullur Mandal, Guntur District. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Ur
The Deputy Superintendent of Police North Division, Guntur, Guntur District. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, South Division Guntur, Guntur District. The Deputy Superintendent of
Guntur District.
1. The Station House Officer, Nallapadu Police Station, Nallapadu, Guntur, Guntur District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High 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 Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in opening and continuing the rowdy sheet No.1/2013 on the file of the Respondent No.5 and after transfer from 5th respondent Police Station to 6th respondent Police Station, re-numbering as Rowdy Sheet No.751- C, Dated 31-07-2014 basing on the solitary crime registered against the petitioner in Crime No.143/2013 on the file of the Respondent No.5, being illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to close the Rowdy Sheet No.751- Category-C on the file of the 6th respondent Nallapadu Police Station, Guntur, Guntur District, by removing his name from the list of Rowdy Sheet.

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.6 not to call the petitioner to the Nallapadu Police Station in connection with Rowdy Sheet No.751-Category-C pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 7309 of 2021

Between:

Shaik Baji Vali, S/o. Shaik Jani Aged about 31 years, Occ - computer operator R/o. D.No.3-2-134, 2nd line Gujanagundla Guntur city, Guntur District.

...PETITIONER/S

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat buildings, Amaravati Guntur District.
1. The Director General of Police, Director General of Police Office, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
1. The Superintendent of Police, Collector Office Rd, R & B Quaters, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Collector Office Rd, R & B Quarters, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.
1. The Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram Police Station Guntur, Guntur District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the $4$ th & $5$ th respondent in retaining the rowdy sheet H.S.No.166-A against me and maintaining the same even without pendency of any case on the file of 5th respondent police station till today is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, violative of Articles 14,19,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also violation of Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Standing Orders and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to remove the rowdy sheet H.S.No.116-A opened against the petitioner on the file of $5th$ respondent.

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of rowdy sheet H.S.No.116-A opened against the writ petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. PILLIX LAW FIRM

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 17453 of 2021

Between:

Puttu Vinod, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 27 years, R/o. H.No. 5-1-57, Behind Viswabharathi High School, Pichireddy Thopu, L.A. Sagaram, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of A.P., Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.
1. The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. The Station House Officer, Naidupet Police Station, Nellore District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 to 4 in opening a History sheet No. 500, dated 22-08-2014 of 4th respondent/police station on the basis of proceedings in C.No.1316/GL-SDOG.2014, Dated 22-08-2014 of the 3rd respondent against the petitioner as illegal arbitrary and in violation of the petitioner fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and calling the petitioner to the police station regularly on the said basis and consequently set-aside the said History/suspect sheet.

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to summon the petitioner to police station on the basis of the History sheet No.500, dated 22-08-2014 on the file of 4th respondent Police Station opened against the petitioner on the basis of proceedings in C.No.1316/GL-SDOG.2014, Dated 22-08-2014 of the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. RAJA REDDY KONETI

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 20139 of 2021

Between:

Gumperla Subba Rao, S/o. Raghaviah, Hindu, aged about 51 years R/o. Mugambika Street, Naidupet, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

AND

...PETITIONER

1. The State of A.P. Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.
The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.
1. The Station House Officer, Naidupet Police Station, Nellore District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the $3rd$ respondent in opening a suspect sheet in proceedings in C.No.741/GL-SDOG/2019, Dated 07-12-2019 against the petitioner and calling to the police station curtailing the petitioner's freedom to move freely etc., regularly as illegal arbitrary and in violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19, 20 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the said suspect sheet.

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to summon the petitioner to police station on the basis of the suspect sheet in proceedings C.No.741/GL-SDOG/2019, DATED 07-12-2019 issued by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. RAJA REDDY KONETI

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 20220 of 2021

Between:

1. Balasa Venkateswarlu, S/o. Ramakrishnaiah, Hindu, aged about 43 years, R/o. 3-8-12/2, Rajagopoalapuram, Vinnamala, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. Gadamsetti Venkateswarlu, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, Aged about 47 years, R/o.
3-5-20, RG Puram, Street No.2, Near Yakasiri Complex, Naidupet, Nellore

...PETITIONERS

AND

The State of A.P., Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. The Station House Officer, Naidupet Police Station, Nell

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3rd respondent in opening a suspect sheet in proceedings in C.No.715/GL-SDOG/2019, Dated 07-12-2019 against the petitioners and calling to the police station curtailing the petitioners freedom to move freely etc., regularly as illegal arbitrary and in violation of the petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the said suspect sheet.

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to summon the petitioners to police station on the basis of the suspect sheet in proceedings C.No.715/GL-SDOG/2019, Dated 07-12-2019 issued by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. RAJA REDDY KONETI

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 25363 of 2021

Between:

Chitturu Srikanth, S/o. Lingeswara Rao, Aged about 43 years, R/o.2-345, Chimpiri Naidupeta, West Gudur, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of A.P., Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.
1. The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. The Station House Officer, Gudur II Town Police Station, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the $3rd$ respondent in opening a suspect sheet in proceedings in C.No.624/GL-SDOG/2019, Dated 02-11-2019 against the petitioner and calling to the police station curtailing the petitioner's freedom to move freely etc., regularly as illegal arbitrary and in violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the said suspect sheet.

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to summon the petitioner to police station on the basis of the suspect sheet in proceedings C.No.624/GL-SDOG/2019, Dated 02-11-2019 issued by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. RAJA REDDY KONETI

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 25448 of 2021

Between:

Kamisetty Prabhakar, S/o. Late Krishnaiah, Hindu, aged about 59 years, R/o. 8/180, Vigneswarapuram, East Gudur, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.
$2.$ The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.
The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gudur, SPSR Nellore DISTRICT. The Station House Officer, Gudur Town Police Station, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the $3rd$ respondent in opening a suspect sheet in proceedings in C.No.721/GL-SDOG/2019, Dated 04-12-2019 against the petitioner and calling to the police station curtailing the petitioner's freedom to move freely etc. regularly as illegal arbitrary and in violation of the petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the said suspect sheet.

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to summon the petitioner to police station on the basis of the suspect sheet in proceedings C.No.721/GL-SDOG/2019, Dated 04-12-2019 issued by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. RAJA REDDY KONETI

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 25451 of 2021

Between:

Gali Muni Babu/Babureddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, Hindu, aged about 45 years, R/o. 554/2, 23rd ward, Opp Ceramic College, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.
The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.
1. The Station House Officer, Gudur II Town Police Station, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in opening a suspect sheet in proceedings in C.No.724/GL-SDOG/2019, Dated 04-12-2019 against the petitioner and calling to the police station curtailing the petitioners freedom to move freely etc., regularly as illegal arbitrary and in violation of the petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the said suspect sheet.

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to summon the petitioner to police station on the basis of the suspect sheet in proceedings C.No.724/GL-SDOG/2019, Dated 04-12-2019 issued by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI, RAJA REDDY KONETI

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 30789 of 2021

Between:

Pilla Paparao, S/o.Late Krishna Aged 57 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o.Madhurawada, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District
Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam.
The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Anakapalli Visakhapatnam. The Station House Officer, Bheemili Police Station, Visakhapatnam District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner in the 4th respondent's police station by virtue of the proceedings in C.NO.90/D1/DCRB-VSP/06 dated 29.07.2006 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents to discontinue the rowdy sheet against the petitioner.

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to call the petitioner to the 4th respondent police station under the guise of impugned rowdy sheet pending disposal of the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. V V SATISH

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 31142 of 2021

Between:

Yadala Srinivasulu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 32 years, R/o. Main Road, Vinjamur Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

...PETITIONER

AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, The State of Andrea Pracest, Nep 2, Net This part Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
The Superinternation of Fonds, Relation, Statistics, Statistics, Statistics, Statistics, Statistics, Statistics, Statistics, Statistics, Statistics, Statistics, Statistics, The Station House Officer, Kavali II ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in opening a rowdy sheet bearing Rowdy Sheet No.145 now on the file of Vinjamur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District vide proceedings No.15/GL-HS-SDO.K/2018, dated 09-04-2018 against the petitioner and calling to the police station curtailing the petitioner freedom to move freely etc., regularly as illegal arbitrary and in violation of the petitioner fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the said Rowdy Sheet.

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to summon me to police station on the basis of the Rowdy sheet bearing No. 145 now on the file of Vinjamur Police Station, Nellore District pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. RAJA REDDY KONETI

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 31212 of 2021

Between:

Silaparasetty Jagan Mohan, S/o.Late Sathiyya, Aged 45 years, Occ.Tuni TDP BC cell President R/o. Rajeev Gruhakalpa Tuni Town, East Godavari District.

AND

...PETITIONER

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District.
1. Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District.
1. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Peddapuram, East Godavari District.
1. The Station House Officer, Tuni Town Police station East Godavari District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in opening and continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner in the 4th respondent's police station by virtue of the proceedings in C.NO.57/ ROWDY/SDPO/2021 dated 18.11.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents to discontinue the rowdy sheet against the petitioner.

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to call the petitioner to the 4th respondent police station under the guise of impugned rowdy sheet pending disposal of the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. V V SATISH

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 31405 of 2021

Between:

Puli Ravindra Reddy, S/o. Nagi Reddy Hindu, aged about 48 years, R/o. Yerrathota, Kaligiri, SPSR Nellore District.

...PETITIONER

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District.
1. The Station House Officer, Kaligiri Police Station, Kaligiri, SPSR Nellore District. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in opening a suspect sheet in proceedings in C.No.o5/GL-HS-SDO.K/2019, Dated 08-01-2020 against the petitioner and calling to the police station curtailing the petitioner's freedom to move freely etc., regularly as illegal arbitrary and in violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the said suspect sheet.

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to summon the petitioner to police station on the basis of the suspect sheet in proceedings C.No.o5/GL-HS-SDO.K/2019, Dated 08-01-2020 issued by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. RAJA REDDY KONETI

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 1802 of 2022

Between:

1. Vadlagunta Thulasi Ram, S/o. V. Suresh Babu, Aged about 34 years, R/o 2-30, Main Road, Opp Pradeep Kumar Hospital, Nawabpeta, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
1. Vadlagunta Sudhakar, S/o. V. Suresh Babu, Aged about 34 years, R/o 2-30, Main Road, Opp Pradeep Kumar Hospital, Nawabpeta, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

...PETITIONERS

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. The Sub Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Nellore Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

...RESPONDENTS

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents direct the respondents-police to remove the Suspect Sheet against the petitioners on the file of 3rd Respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 2007 of 2022

Between:

Mahesh Reddy, S/o.Satyanarayana Reddy Aged 42 Gottigundala vears. R/o.K.R.R.Nagar, Padugupadu village, Kovur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District.
1. Superintendent of Police, SPSR Nellore District.
1. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Rural, SPSR Nellore District.
1. The Station House Officer, Kovur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in opening and continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner in the 4th respondent's police station by virtue of the proceedings in C.No.425/GL-SDO $N(R)/2018$ , dt.06.08.2018 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents to discontinue the rowdy sheet against the petitioner.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to call the petitioner to the 4th respondent police station under the guise of impugned rowdy sheet pending disposal of the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. C. SUBODH

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No: 2634 of 2022

Between:

1. Ghanta Sudhakar Babu, S/o. Ghanta Nageswara Rao, Aged about 40 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. D.No. 15-29, Main Road Endugumpalem Nuzellapalli Agraharam, Guntur District.
1. Kolluri Subbarao, S/o. Apparao, Aged about 44 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. D.No. 24-51/2/A. Kakatiya Nagar, Ramachandrapuram, Rangareddy District. Telengana.

...PETITIONERS

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The Commissioner of Police, Guntur Police Commissionerate, Guntur.
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Division, Guntur City, Guntur District.

4. The Station House Officer, Chilakaluripet Police Station, Guntur District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in opening a Suspect Sheet against the Petitioner vide proceedings C.No.32/sheet/SDPO-NRT/2018 dated 26-05-2018, invoking Order No.600/1 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, Part-I, Volume-II "B" and issuing proceedings vide C. No. 20/SDPO-NRT/2021, dated 20-11-2021 as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and their Police personnel not to call the Petitioner to the Police Station and not to make him sit in the Police Station without any basis basing on the impugned 'Suspect Sheet' opened vide reference C.No.32/sheet/SDPO-NRT/2018 dated 26-05-2018.

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. P S P SURESH KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 3568 of 2022

Between:

Udathu Suresh, S/o. Anjaneyulu, Hindu, aged about 43 years, R/o. Addanki town, Prakasam District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of A.P, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.
The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole.
The Superintendent of Police, Prakasant District, Origone. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Darsi, Prakasam District.
The Circle Inspector of Police, Addanki, Prakasam District.
The Station House Officer, Addanki Police Station, Prakasam District.

...RESPONDENTS

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to summon the petitioner to the police station as part of surveillance or otherwise on the basis of rowdy sheet in C.No.05/History Sheets/SDOD/2020, dated 10-05-2020 opened against the petitioner pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

IA NO: 2 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to Amend the prayer in the above Writ Petition to that affect by adding the following prayer "and further that the standing orders in Chapter 34 and 37 of A.P. Police Manual/A.P. Police Standing orders to the extent of opening of Rowdy Sheets, Suspect Sheet, History Sheet, etc., and on that basis the surveillance of the individual in terms of Chapter 37 of the above said standing orders be declared as void under Article 13 of the Constitution of India as the said standing orders to the above said extent of opening of Rowdy Sheet, Suspect Sheet, history Sheet, etc., are in violation of the Fundamental rights.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI, RAJA REDDY KONETI

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No: 3588 of 2022

Between:

Battineni Anjaiah, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Business, R/o. D.No.8-154/16, Yerrabalem Village, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

AND

...PETITIONER

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary Home, Secretariat, Amaravathi at Velagapudi, Guntur District.
The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban District, Guntur.
1. Sub-Divisional Police Officer, North Sub-Division, Guntur Urban, Guntur, Guntur District.
1. The Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Rural, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioner by calling to the police station frequently and keeping the petitioner upto night without any reason by threatening to open suspect sheet as against the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim direction directing the respondents not to calling the petitioner to the police station without issuing any notice, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. B V ANJANEYULU

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 3647 of 2022

Between:

Erukala Sai Ram, S/o. Late Gangappa, Aged. 53 years, Occ. Chief Welfare Inspector, DRM Office, South Central Railways R/o D.No.12-217-B, Journalist Colony, Guntakal Town, Anantapur District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by it's Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
1. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Anantapur District.
The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Guntakal, Anantapur District. The Station House Officer, Kasapuram Police Station, Anantapur District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings. C.No.59/HSs/SDPO-G/2020 dt.26.10.2020 issued by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Guntakal there by opening Rowdy Sheet bearing No.636 as against Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, against principles of natural justice and set aside the same consequently direct- the Respondents to close the Rowdy Sheet bearing no.636 opened against the Petitioner.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI, N. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 4010 of 2022

Between:

Kanala Krishna Reddy, S/o.Kanala Ramachandra Reddy Aged about 37 Years, Occ. Ward Welfare and Development Secretary (Grade-II Employee), R/o.1/312, Podaralla, Ananthapuram, A.P- 515731

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Department of Home, The State of Andrea Placesh, Rep. by Thiolian Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. The Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District,
A.P.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents herein in maintaining/continuing a Rowdy Sheet No.51 against the Petitioner herein on the file of 4th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Ultra-vires the Police Standing orders and consequently direct the respondents herein to close the Rowdy Sheet No.51 against the Petitioner herein maintained on the file of 4th Respondent.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to close the Rowdy Sheet No.51 against the Petitioner herein maintained on the file of $4^{th}$ Respondent in pursuance to the Petitioner's representation dt.24.01.2022.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. CHALLA GUNARANJAN

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 4461 of 2022

Between:

Yenugupalli Rajeswara Rao, S/o. late Appanna, Hindu, aged about 50 years, Occ TPM (A) Operating Railway Employee, R/o Srirampuram Village, Payakaraopet Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, The State of Viraling Pracesin, Rep Synd Principal Secretary, Home Boy Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur district. The Director General of Police, Office at Mangalagiri, Guntur
The Additional Superintendent of Police, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. The Station House Officer, Payakaraopeta Police Station, at Payakaraopeta, Visakhapatnam District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in opening the rowdy sheet against the Petitioner herein by referring to the complaints one in and all the dispute is about land at Survey No. 12/4 of Srirampuram village, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam district by foisting false complaints, by misusing the executive powers even by the Respondent No. 5 without having any jurisdiction or authority as nothing but illegal, erroneous, highhanded and misuse of executive powers conferred on them and violative of Article 14 and 21 of The Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to remove the photograph of the Petitioner in the notice board of the Respondent No. 5 herein.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 not to call upon the Petitioner to the Police Station for counseling under the guise of rowdy sheet being opened by affixing the photograph of the petitioner in the notice board of the Respondent No. 5 forthwith pending disposal of above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. A K KISHORE REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 4814 of 2022

Between:

Shaik Raheem, S/o. Shaik Adam Shafi, Aged 29 years, R/o Door No.1-3-13/3, Pallachamma Street, Gupta Center, Vidhyadhapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

...PETITIONER

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada Police Comi
District.
1. The Station House Officer, Bhavanipuram Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in opening a 'Suspect Sheet' against the Petitioner under the proceedings C.No.111/HS/ACP-WD/2016, Dt.10.12.2016, invoking Order No.600-1 of Chapter-33, Volume-II, Part-I, Andhra Pradesh Police Manual as illegal, arbitrary, Contrary to Standing Orders 597 and 600 of Chapter-33, Volume-II, Part-I Andhra Pradesh Police Manual and violation of Articles, 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and their Police personnel not to call the Petitioner to Bhavanipuram Police Station, Vijayawada on every Sunday on the premise of the suspect sheet opened under C.No.111/HS/ACP-WD/2016, Dt.10.12.2016, pending disposal of Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 5128 of 2022

Between:

Epuri Surya Rao, S/o. Epuri Satynarayana, 3-45, China Sankarlapadu, Prathipadu, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh 533432.

...PETITIONER

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by it's Principal Secretary (Home Dept) Secretariat Buildings, at Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District
Pradesh.
1. The Station House Officer of Prathipadu Police Station, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents in opening the rowdy sheet bearing no C.No.4/ROWDY/SDPO/2022 dated 22.01.2022 against the petitioner in Peddapuram, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District without adhering rules contemplated in the Police Standing Orders No 742 and following the principles laid down in the cases of PUTTAGUNTA PASI ALIAS PENTA PASI V/S COMMISSIONER OF POLICE reported in 1998 LawSuit(AP) 56. And B SATYANARAYANA REDDY V/S STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD reported in 2003 LawSuit(AP) 1477 is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Art 14,16,19,21 and Art 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to close the rowdy C.No.4/ROWDY/SDPO/2022 dated 22/01/2022 against the petitioner in Prathipadu Police Station.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI, JADA SRAVAN KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 5322 of 2022

Between:

Parimi Soma Sekhar Naidu, S/o. Chinna Vobulayya, age 39 years H.No.2/1100, RDT colony, Tadipatri, Ananthapurtam.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The Superintendent of Police, Ananthapur Distirict.
1. The Sub-Divisional Police officer, Tadipatri Division.
1. The Circle Inspector of Police, Tadipathri Town.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the act of the Respondents in opening a rowdy sheet against the Petitioner herein as Arbutrary and is in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the rowdy sheet opened against the Petitioner and direct the Respondents not to call the Petitioner to the police station without any written notice and direct them not to harass the Petitioner by orally asking him to sit in the police station for hours together without any justifiable reason, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI, CH BHANU PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 5573 of 2022

Between:

Beeram Venkateswara Reddy, S/o. Venkata Konda Reddy, Aged about 42 years, R/o. H.No.2/15/ Parlapadu, Kadapa District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Nelapadu, Guntur District. The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, Kadapa District.
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Proddatur Division, Kadapa District.
1. The Station House Office, Rajupalein Police Station, Proddatur Division, Kadapa District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondent No.4 in opening and continuing Rowdy Sheet No. 26 of 2007 against the petitioner in Rajupalem Police Station, Rajupalemt, Ptoddatur Division, Kadapa District as illegal, colorable exercise of power, contrary to the settled principles of legal position and Violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents No.2 to 4 to close the Rowdy Sheet No. 26 of 2007 against the petitioner in Rajupaleni Police Station, Rajupalemt, Proddatur Division, Kadapa District.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

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 direct Respondents to direct the respondent No.4 not to call to the Rajupalem Police Station, Rajupalem, Proddatur Division, Kadapa District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI, G. ESWARAIAH

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 5633 of 2022

Between:

Sikhakolli Rama Krishna, S/o. Srinivasarao, Hindu, aged about 29 years, R/o. Kotla Bazaar, Inkollu Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, The State of Andria Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh at Mangalagiri, Guntur District.</

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in opening a suspect sheet bearing C.No.31/SUSPECT-SDOC/2019, Dated 04-11-2019 against the petitioner in Sheet No.46 as illegal arbitrary and in violation of the petitioner fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and calling the petitioner to the police station regularly on the said basis and consequently set-aside the said suspect sheet.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to summon the petitioner to police station on the basis of the suspect sheet bearing C.No.31/SUSPECT-SDOC/2019, Dated 04-11-2019 opened against the petitioner pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI, RAJA REDDY KONETI

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P.No: 5707 of 2022

Between:

Dwarampudi Venakata Reddy @ D.V, S/o. Venkata Reddy, aged 45 years, R/o. Komaropalem Village, Bikkavole Mandal, East Godavari District.

...PETITIONER

AND

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

1. Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District at Kakinada.
1. Sub Divisional Police Officer-cum-Deputy Superintendent of Police. Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District
1. Station House Officer, Bikkavole Police Station, East Godavari District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents in opening rowdy sheet/suspect sheet and consequential action of $4$ th respondent in insisting the petitioner to appear before his authority every day for marking rowdy sheeter's attendance as illegal, irregular, irrational, without any authority of law and voilative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and also violative of Police Standing Orders and consequently quash the Rowdy Sheet by directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner life and liberty in any manner.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

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 direct the respondents not to insist the petitioner to appear before their authority under the guise of pending rowdy/Suspect Sheet, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. KOLLURI ARJUN CHOWDARY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 5776 of 2022

Between:

Chalapati Bhusanam, S/o. Late Nageswara Rao, Aged 40 years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o.Ayyaparajugudem Village, Lingapalem Mandal, West Godavari District.

...PETITIONER

AND

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District at E
1. Sub Divisional Police Officer, cum-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District.
Station House Officer, Dhannajigude Police Station, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents in opening Rowdy Sheet/Suspect Sheet against the petitioner and consequential action of 4th respondent in insisting the petitioner to appear before his authority every week for marking rowdy sheeter's attendance, as illegal, irregular, irrational, without any authority of law and voilative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and also violative of Police Standing Orders and consequently quash the Rowdy Sheet by directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's life and liberty in any manner.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents particularly $4^{th}$ respondent not to insist the petitioner to appear before their authority nor detain him at Police Station under the guise of attending to, pending Rowdy/Suspect Sheet, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 5811 of 2022

Between:

Nallamilli Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, aged 50 years, R/o. Balabhadrapuram Village, Bikkavole Mandal, East Godavari District.

...PETITIONER

AND

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District at K
Sub Divisional Police Officer-cum-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. Station House Officer, Bikkavole Police Station, East Godavari District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents in opening rowdy sheet/suspect sheet and consequential action of 4th respondent in insisting me to appear before his authority every day for marking rowdy sheeter's attendance as illegal, irregular, irrational, without any authority of law and voilative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and also violative of Police Standing Orders and consequently quash the Rowdy Sheet by directing the respondents not to interfere with my life and liberty in any manner.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to insist me to appear before their authority under the guise of pending rowdy/Suspect Sheet, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. KOLLURI ARJUN CHOWDARY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P.No. 6048 of 2022

Between:

1. Masala Bheemi Reddy, aged 55 years S/o. Late Bheemalinga, R/o Narasapuram Village GuntakalMandal, Anantapuramu District.
1. N.Yellappa, aged 55 years S/o. Naganna, R/o Narasapuram Village GuntakalMandal, Anantapuramu District.
1. Masala Ramesh, aged 30 years S/o. Masala Bheemi Reddy R/o Narasapuram Village Guntakal Mandal, Anantapuramu District.
1. Masala Madhu, aged 32 years S/o. Masala Bheemi Reddy R/o Narasapuram
Masala Madrid, aged 32 years 3/0. Masala Briefin Reddy R/O Narasapuram Village GuntakalMandal, Anantapuramu District. Kuruba Kullayi, aged 32 years S/o. Sunkanna, R/o Narasapuram Village GuntakalM
Kuruba Mallikarjuna, aged 44 years S/o. Bheemalingappa R/o Narasapuram Village GuntakalMandal, Anantapuramu District. Kuruba Vemulavadu, aged 53 years S/o. Pedda Bheemalingappa R/o Narasapuram Vil

...PETITIONERS

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi Village, Guntur District.

1. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur District, Anantapuram, Andhra Pradesh.
1. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Guntakal Division, AnantapuramDistrict, Andhra Pradesh.
1. The Station House Officer, Kasapuram PS, Anantapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in continuing the names of the petitioners on the oils of Rowdy sheet vide No. 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129 and 130 of 2012 respectively on the file of 4th respondent police station, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Police Standing Orders apart from violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the respondents to forthwith remove the names of the petitioners from Rowdy sheet.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to call and detain the petitioners as per the rowdy sheet no. 124,125, 127, 128, 129 and 130 of 2012 respectively pending disposal of main writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI, HARISH KUMAR RASINENI

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 6107 of 2022

Between:

Thamatam Kesanna Goud, S/o. Ramakrishna Goud, Aged 44, R/o 2-2, Gutti Road, Dhone, Kurnool District.

AND

...PETITIONER

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Home, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati.
1. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dhone, Sub-Division, Kurnool District. The Station House Officer (C.I), Dhone Police Station, Dhone, Kurnool District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the $3^{rd}$ and $4^{th}$ respondents in calling the petitioner to attend the police station, unless his presence is required for any cognizable offence either as a witness or as an accused without written intimation is illegal, contrary to law, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and unconstitutional.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct $3rd$ and $4th$ respondent not to call the petitioner to attend the police station unless his presence is required for any cognizable offence either as a witness or as an accused without issuing prior notice pending disposal of the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. VENKATESWARLU POSANI

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 6228 of 2022

Between:

1. Nidrakota Gunasekhar, S/o. Munaswamy Achari, aged about 45 years, Occ. Welder, Tada Kandriga, Tada Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
Chilamathur Malleswaran, S/o. Krishnama Achari, aged about 40 years, Occ. Private Employee, Tada Kandriga, Tada Mandal, SPSR Nellore District
Kannavaram Yuvaraju, S/o. Subramanyam, aged about 23 years Occ. Contract Worker, Rajiv Nagar, Tada Kandriga, Tada Mandal, SPSR Nellore District Syed Nooruddin, S/o. Syed Jamaluddin, aged about 30
Mogunard Ramesh, 676. Basaradharaharah, aged about 34 years Occ. Contract Worker, Thambugari Palem, Aruru, SPSR Nellore District. Kanappa Reddy Shankar, S/o. Kanappa Reddy, aged about 47 years Occ
Worker, Vanamthopu, Sullurpet, SPSR Nellore District.

...PETITIONERS

AND

1. The State of A.P., Rep.by the Secretary for Home Nelapadu, A.P.
The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Puttur, Chittoor District. The Inspector of Police, Sathyavedu Circle, Chittoor District.
The Mappeter of Police, Statiyavedd Sincic, Onliced Bistrict. The Station House Officer, Varadhaiapalem P.S, Chittoor District. The Station House Officer, Tada, SPSR Nellore District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction, by declaring the action of the respondents in opening suspect sheet vide order C.No 27/BC/SDPO/2022 dt. 05.10.2021 against the petitioners is as illegal arbitrary, capricious and violation of the Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently quash the orders of the 3rd respondent C.No 27/BC/SDPO/2022. dated 05.10.2021.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. K. SREEDHAR MURTHY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 6281 OF 2022

Between:

A.Rajendra Prasad, S/o. Srinivasarao @ Swamulu, age 35 years, D.No. 4-47, Nayunipalli, Vetapalem, Prakasam District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The Station House Officer, Vetapalem, Prakasam District.
1. The Inspector of Police, Chirala, Prakasam District.
1. The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Chirala, Prakasam District.
1. The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole.5. The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the Respondent No. 1 in continuing rowdy sheet No. 55 dt. 25-03-2019 against the petitioner before the 1st respondent Police Station as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to close the rowdy sheet pending before the 1st respondent.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent not to interfere with petitioners life and liberty by calling petitioner to police station under guise of rowdy sheet pending before the 1st respondent against the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 6351 of 2022

Between:

M.Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o. Garuda Sekhar Reddy, Aged. 40 years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o Medimakulapally, Peddavaduguru (in), Anantapur District.

AND

...PETITIONER

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by it's Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The Superintend Of Police, Anantapur, Anantapur District. T
1. The Station House Officer, Peddavaduguru Police Station, Peddavaduguru, Anantapur District.

...RESPONDENTS

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents 3 and 4 to not to call the Petitioner to Police Station by assigning the reason that Petitioner being a Rowdy Sheeter they have to keep a vigilance on him

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI, N. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 6364 of 2022

Between:

Alla Buli Raju, S/o. late Appala Naidu, Aged 54 Years, House No. 6-72/1, Gavara Jaggaiahpalem, Pendurthi, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.The Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam District Rural, Visakhapatnam,
Visakhapatnam District.
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, West Sub Division, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District.
1. The Inspector of Police, Pendurthi Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District.
1. The Station House officer, Pendurthi Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order for issuance of a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, declaring a) the action of the Respondents particularly 2 to 5 herein, in opening and continuing the Suspect history Sheet against the petitioner Vide C.No.07/History Sheets/ACP-W/2020 dt.16.06.2020, as per the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, West Sub-division, Visakhapatnam city on the file of Pendurthi P.S, against the petitioner, even though single registration of FIR is pending against the petitioner which is a civil dispute converted into criminal case, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Police Standing Orders, contrary to the principles of natural justice and also in violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct all the respondents herein, to close the Suspect History Sheet against the petitioner Vide C.No.07/History Sheets/ACP-W/2020 dt.16.06.2020, on the file of $5$ th respondent police Station i.e. Pendurthi police station b)to direct the respondents to not to call the petitioner every week to the 5th respondent police station, and c)to direct the 5th respondent to remove the photograph and name of the petitioner on the notice board of 5th respondent police station.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order to direct the respondents 3 to 5 to not to call the petitioner on every week Sunday to the 5th respondent police station relates to the Suspect History Sheet against petitioner Vide C.No.07/History Sheets/ACP-W/2020 dt.16.06.2020, on the file of 5th respondent police Station i.e, Pendurthi police station, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

IA NO: 2 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order to suspend the Suspect History Sheet against petitioner Vide C.No.07/History Sheets/ACP-W/2020 dt.16.06.2020, on the file of 5th respondent police Station i.e. Pendurthi police station, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. Dr MAJJI SURI BABU

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 6393 of 2022

Between:

Pennada Satyanarayana, S/o. Sri Dharma Rao, Hindu, Age 41 years Occ:Teacher, R/o. Door No. 2-13-6, K S R Nagar, Ramachandrapuram - 533 255, East Godavari District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi 522 237, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada -533 005, East Godavari District.
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Amalapuram 533 201 East Godavari District.
1. The Station House Officer, Mummidivaram P.S., Mummidivaram 533 216 East Godavari District.

...RESPONDENTS

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to summon the Petitioner to the police station pursuant to the 'Rowdy Sheet' opened against him on the file of the 4th Respondent, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. N. SIVA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No: 6683 of 2022

Between:

Vommi Ananda Rao, S/o. Ramulu, Aged 58 Years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o. Symalapuram Village, L.N. Peta Mandal, Srikakulam District.

...PETITIONER

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by it's Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam District, Srikaku
1. The Inspector of Police, Amadalavalasa Circle, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sarubujjili Police Station, Srikakulam District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in permitting to open the rowdy sheet vide proceeding C.No.22/SDPO-S/H.S/2020. dated 17.02.2020, as per the orders of the respondent No.2 vide C.No.208/D2/DCRB-SKL/2019, dated 20.12.2019 is illegal, arbitrary, violation of life and personal liberty and contrary to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violation of Police Standing Order 601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual and direct the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to close the rowdy sheet against the petitioner.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings in C.No.22/SDPO-S/H.S/2020, dated 17.02.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent, as per the orders of the respondent No.2 vide C.No.208/D2/DCRB-SKL/2019, dated 20.12.2019, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. K M KRISHNA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 6713 of 2022

Between:

Menda Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Simhachelam, Aged 45 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Karaka Valasa Village, Chintala Badavanja Post, L.N. Peta Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by it's Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District,
1. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam.
The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.
$4.$ The Inspector of Police, Amadalavalasa Circle, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District.
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sarubujjili Police Station, Srikakulam District. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in permitting to open the rowdy sheet vide proceeding C.No.23/SDPO-S/H-S/2020, dated 17.02.2020, as per the orders of the respondent No.2 vide C.No.208/D2/DCRB-SKL/2019, dated 20.12.2019 is illegal, arbitrary, violation of life and personal liberty and contrary to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violation of Police Standing Order 601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual and direct the respondent Nos.3 to 5 to close the rowdy sheet against the petitioner.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings in C.No.23/SDPO-S/H-S/2020, dated 17.02.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent, as per the orders of the respondent No.2 vide C.No. 208/D2/DCRB-SKL/2019, dated 20.12.2019, pending disposal of the main writ petition and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. K M KRISHNA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 6797 of 2022

Between:

Soma Lokeswara Reddy, S/o. Soma Pakkirareddy, Hindu, aged about 50 years, R/o.15/1315, Sanjeeva Nagar, Zero Road, Tadipatri, Anantapur District, presently residing at Chimakurthi Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.
The Superintendent of Police, Aanantapur, Ananatapur District.
The Superintendent of Police, Aanantapur, Anantapur District. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Tadipatri, Anantapur District. The Circle Inspector of Police, Tadipatri, Anantapur Di The Station House Officer, Yellanur Police Station, Anantapur District.

...RESPONDENTS

declaring the action of the respondents in continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner bearing No. 105 of 1998 for more than 10 years of the petitioner acquittal from criminal cases as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to close the rowdy sheet against the petitioner.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to summon the petitioner to the police station as part of surveillance or otherwise on the basis of rowdy sheet No.105 of 1998 pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. RAJA REDDY KONETI

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 6948 of 2022

Between:

Shaik Silar, S/o. Moulali, Aged about 49 years, R/o. D.No. 19-12-187, 7th Line, Sangadigunta, L.R. Colony, Guntur. ...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.
The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban, Guntur. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Guntur City, Guntur District. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Guntur East, Guntur. </o
1. The Station House Officer, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur District.

...RESPONDENTS

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to summon the petitioner to the police station as part of surveillance or otherwise on the basis of rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI, RAJA REDDY KONETI

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 7202 of 2022

Between:

A. Ankamma Rao, S/o. Veeraswamy, age 41 years, D.No. 8-139, Kadavakuduru, Chinganjam Mandal, Prakasam District.

...PETITIONER

AND

The Station House Officer, Chinaganjam, Prakasam District. The Inspector of Police, Chirala, Prakasam District.
1. The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Chirala, Prakasam District.
1. The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole.5. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the Respondent No. 1 in continuing suspect sheet No. 61 dt. 10-05-2020 against the petitioner before the 1st respondent Police Station as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to close the suspect sheet pending before the 1st respondent.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent not to interfere with petitioner's life and liberty by calling petitioner to police station under guise of suspect sheet pending before the 1st respondent against the petitioner pending disposal of the wit petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 7543 of 2022

Between:

Ancha Narendra, S/o. Hari Babu, Aged about 45 years, Farmer, R/o 4-29-88/5, NVR Colony, Ithanagar, Tenali, Guntur District, A.P.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, through its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati.
1. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban, Guntur District at Guntur.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Guntur South, Guntur District, A.P. The Station House Officer, Tenali- II town Police Station.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in opening and continuing rowdy sheet against the petitioner and paying domiciliary visits to the petitioner house and business place asking repeatedly to appear before them as illegal, irregular, without jurisdiction and violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders and offends articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently quash the rowdy sheet and not to interfere with the petitioner liberty in any manner in the interest of justice.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to pay domiciliary visits to the petitioner house and business place nor insist upon the petitioner appearance before them pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. KARUMANCHI INDRANEEL BABU

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 7832 of 2022

Between:

Adapa Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Veerabadra Prasadarao Aged about 44 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o D.No. 2-37/1, Pathoori Ramalayam veedhi Borugupoodi, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District. A.P.

AND

...PETITIONER
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Home department Secretariat, Velagapudi, at Amaravathi Andhra Pradesh
$2.$ The Superintendent of Police, Rajamundry urban police District Lala cheruvu, Rajamahendravaram East Godavari District
1. The Dy. Superintendent of Police, North Zone, Korukonda (V and M) East Godavari District.
The Inspector of Police Korukonda, (V and M) East Godavari District. The Station House officer Korukonda P.S, Korukonda Mandal East Godavari District.
1. Jakkampudi Rajaindravandith, S/o. Rama Mohana Rao Aged about 35 years, occ MLA Rajanagaram Constituency R/o Near Prakash Nagar, Round Park Beside Medicare Hospital Rajamahendravaram.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent authorities in opening a Rowdy Sheet against me on the file of 5th Respondent, at the instance of 6th Respondent, harassing and threatening me by sending his police men to my residence and work place as illegal biased, unconstitutional and against principles of natural justice consequently set aside the same and to pass such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and necessary in the circumstances of the case. b) Direct the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 2 corers for causing defamation of my reputation mental agony and lowering my prestige in the vicinity.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioner pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and to pass such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.

IA NO: 2 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to place the details of cases pending and past against the 6th respondent and to pass such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. D S N V PRASAD BABU

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

Writ Petition Nos.21247, 26239, 31949, 32683 & 40632 of 2016, 11468, 31311 of 2017, 3721, 8473 of 2019, 6144, 19071, 23238, 23246, 23665 of 2020, 3919, 4212, 7309, 17453, 20139, 20220, 25363, 25448, 25451, 30789, 31142, 31212, 31405 of 2021, 1802, 2007, 2634, 3568, 3588, 3647, 4010, 4461, 4814, 5128, 5322, 5573, 5633, 5707, 5776, 5811, 6048, 6107, 6228, 6281, 6351, 6364, 6393, 6683, 6713, 6797, 6948, 7202, 7543, 7832 of 2022

COMMON ORDER:

"Your freedom ends where my nose begins."

A man is walking on a busy crowded street swinging his arms with gay abandon, when somebody stopped him. He said "I have my freedom and these are my arms". An elderly gentleman told him that by swinging your arms you cannot hit me on my face - "Your freedom, therefore, ends where my nose begins". This is how the concept of reasonable restriction was planted in our mind at a young age.

$2)$ The question that arises in these cases is similar and has been pending before the Indian Judiciary for years. The opening remarks made in 1981 in Malak Singh and Others $v$ State of P&H and Others1 by Justice O.Chinnappa Reddy are as follows:

"To what extent may the citizen's right to be let alone be invaded by the duty of the police to prevent crime is the problem posed in these two appeals by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution."

$^{1}$ (1981) 1 SCC 420 = AIR 1981 SC 760

This big batch of writ petitions has been filed questioning the opening and continuation of rowdy sheets against the petitioners in all these cases.
Learned counsels have argued the matter at length, but the leading arguments were advanced by Sri Rajareddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.3568 of 2022, who also challenged the vires of the Police Standing Orders under which these rowdy sheets are being opened and continued. Therefore, this Writ Petition is taken up as the lead Writ Petition.

This Court has also heard Sri K.S.Murthy, Learned $5)$ Senior counsel, Sri V.V. Satish, Sri G. Ramgopal, Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar and others. The learned counsels adopted the essential arguments advanced by the lead counsels and each of them supplemented the same by making their submissions on the facts of each case.

In reply to this Sri V. Maheswar Reddy, learned $6)$ Government Pleader for Home argued the matter at length for the respondent-State of Andhra Pradesh.

This Court at the very outset places on record its $7)$ deep sense of appreciation for the learned counsels who argued the matter at length and also to Sri V.Maheswar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home, who articulated the State's view point very efficiently.

The gist of the submissions made by all the learned $8)$ counsels for the petitioners can be summarized as follows:

a) The opening and the continuation of rowdy sheets The Constitution Bench of the is contrary to law. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K.S.Puttaswamy v Union of India2 has clarified that privacy is also a Fundamental Right and that the judgments in cases of Kharak Singh v State of U.P.3 and M.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra4 are not good law. In view of the declaration of law by the highest Court of the land that Privacy is a Fundamental Right, it can be restricted only in accordance with a "law".

b) It is argued that as far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned all the rowdy sheets are being opened and continued on the basis of Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders, which are merely departmental instructions and are not "law". The Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, and the orders therein on which the State places reliance, cannot be called "law". It is also submitted that the standing orders have been declared to not to have the force or / effect of law, in the cases of Mohammed Quadeer and Ors., v Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and Ors.,5 and Sunkara Satyanarayana v State of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department and Ors.,6. It is submitted that in view of

$2(2017)$ 10 SCC 1 3AIR 1963 SC 1295 4AIR 1954 SC 300 51993 (3) ALD 30 61999 (6) ALT 240

$\overline{3}$

these pronouncements of law relating to the very same Police orders, no further declaration need be sought, but still the lead petitioners have sought a declaration that the Standing Orders are not law in view of the recent judgment in K.S.Puttaswamy case (2 supra).

c) Alternatively, it is also submitted that even the rules and procedure prescribed in Standing Orders are not being followed and that the Rowdy Sheets are being opened and continued mechanically without any application of mind and without any basis or material in support. It is also stated that the periodical review, which is stipulated by the Police Standing Orders, is not being followed and rowdy sheets are being continued ad infinitum. Even after acquittals in the solitary cases the rowdy sheets are being continued.

Even the offences not included under the A.P. Police $d$ Manual are being included or stated as the reason for opening of rowdy sheets. Cases involving transportation of tobacco products are used as a reason to open the rowdy sheets, for example in W.P.Nos.20220 of 2021 and 20139 of 2021. Even after FIRs were quashed the rowdy sheets are continued. It is also submitted that cases which are compromised in Lok Adalat etc., are still being used as a ruse to continue the rowdy sheets (W.P.No.17453 of 2021). Petty offences are registered and rowdy sheets are opened.

$\overline{4}$

e) The petitioners are being called to the police station at unearthly hours and are made to wait for a day or two at the police station. The right of the police to summon the petitioners / rowdies to the police stations, making them stand / wait and the practice of parading them before the superior officers is also questioned. Police personnel are constantly visiting the houses of the petitioners without any basis or reason.

$5$

Their photographs are obtained and are put up in $\mathfrak{f}$ Police Stations in prominent places branding them as "Rowdies" for the general public to see.

The petitioners are being classified as habitual $g)$ offenders / known depredators / rowdies even if they are involved in one stray crime. Judicial definition of habitual offender as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Narain Singh v State of Bihar7, which is followed in the case of Kamma Bapuji and Ors., v Station House Officer, Brahamasamudram and Ors.,8 is also blatantly overlooked by the Police authority.

h) It is also submitted that despite the clear pronouncement on the law by the highest Court. of the land and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, police are opening and continuing the rowdy sheets with utter

71984 CrILJ 909 81997 (6) ALD 583 disregard to the settled law. None of the procedural safeguards are also followed. There is no application of mind or consideration of material either in the opening or the continuation of the rowdy sheets.

The home/domiciliary visits, summoning to the i) station, collection of personal information, the display of such information and its dissemination including sharing of the same is questioned as a clear infringement of the right of privacy. Infringement of Articles 14,19 and 21 is 'mentioned in many writ petitions.

It is argued that the Cr.P.C., and other laws contain $i$ measures / provisions for prevention of crime and that these provisions of law are not at all utilised,

Lastly, it is argued that once there is an $k$ authoritative declaration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that privacy is a Fundamental Right, it can only be restricted by a law. According to the learned counsels there is no 'law 'at all in existence and the PSO are mere administrative guidelines. Hence they pray for a general order.

Since very long arguments are advanced on various 9) aspects the gist of the submission is summarised on behalf of the petitioners.

$\mathsf{6}$

For the respondents, Sri V. Maheswar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home submitted the following:-

a) According to him, one of the most important functions of the Police is the early detection and prevention of crime. Learned Government Pleader emphasises on this aspect of collection of data / intelligence etc., for early detection of a potential crime and for the purpose of prevention of the same. This is the essential substratum of his arguments and he submits that compelling public interest is involved in this. He relies on the Chapters relating to Surveillance in the Police Standing Orders in support.

b) It is his contention that under Section 149 of Cr.P.C., also the Police have an active duty to prevent the commission of cognizable offences. Learned Government Pleader for Home, therefore, emphasises that the entire exercise of the Police Department, in either opening or in continuing the rowdy sheet, is to ensure that a crime is not committed by gathering information/intelligence. According to him, the prevention of crime and the protection of the society are the essential reasons /rationale for the opening of a rowdy sheet.

c) He also submits that the challenge to the Police Standing Orders made in these cases is not backed up

by adequate or proper pleadings and that, therefore, this Court cannot decide on the vires of the Police Standing Orders.

d) Learned Government Pleader also argues that the Police Standing Orders are not unconstitutional, that procedural safeguards are provided and that they are being implemented. He points out that proportionality is also present and that the rowdy sheets are being opened and continued only in cases where it is absolutely necessary and in the public interest.

decision in He also submits that the $e)$ K.S.Puttaswamy (2 supra) did not directly discuss the issue of "rowdy sheet / surveillance" etc., and that, therefore, the factual context of the said judgement cannot be lost sight of. In view of the difference in facts and the points of law, learned Government Pleader for Home submits that the case of K.S.Puttaswamy (2 supra) by itself cannot be a ground to allow all these Writ Petitions.

He also submits in the alternative that the $f$ judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Gobind v State of Madhya Pradesh and Another9 and Malak Singh case (1 supra) recognized the need for and upheld discrete unobtrusive surveillance of suspects.

9(1975) 2 SCC 148

He also points out that in the State of Andhra $g)$ Pradesh in the leading judgement of Sunkara Satyanarayana (6 supra) a learned single Judge of this Court also held that discreet surveillance is permissible in order to prevent crime.

h) He points out that the learned single Judge held that right to privacy under Articles 14, 19 and 21 are violated only when the rowdy sheeter is subjected to obtrusive/intrusive surveillance. Learned Government Pleader for Home points out that even before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that privacy is a Fundamental Right, the learned single Judge noticed this aspect and yet did not strike down the action being taken by the police. He only imposed certain "reasonable" restrictions. This judgement is cited as an alternative argument.

Similarly, he relies upon the judgement of the i) learned single Judge of the Telangana High Court in W.P.No.18726 of 2020 to argue that unobtrusive surveillance limited to barest minimum can be carried out. Alternatively by relying upon a judgement of the Karnataka High Court in W.P.No.4504 of 2021 and batch decided on 22.04.2021 (B.S.Prakash v State of Karnataka) which is after the judgement in K.S.Puttaswamy case (2 supra), learned Government Reader points out that even the learned single Judge

clearly held that in view of the compelling State interest certain guidelines have to be issued and that the institutionalised rowdy register, history sheeting etc., should not be abruptly discontinued with a stroke of pen. He points out that the learned single Judge gave alternative directions to include the due process clause. In line with this he also relies on the judgement of a learned single Judge of Madras High Court in Thirumagan v Superintendent of Police and another10 case where directions were issued to the Police only with respect to rowdy sheets.

Therefore, learned Government Pleader argues that $i)$ the Writ Petitions have to be dismissed and the entire process of rowdy sheeting etc., should not be abruptly discontinued as that would lead to "compelling State interest" being sacrificed. At best some more safeguards can be suggested and that only a case to case decision must be given based on individual facts and an enmasse declaration against rowdy sheeting is not called for.

CONSIDERATION BY COURT:

The question that arises in this case is a question which has been pending before the Judiciary for years and is mentioned in the opening paragraph. The opening remarks in Malak Singh case (1 supra) by Justice O.Chinnappa Reddy were reproduced earlier itself.

$\sim$

10 2020 SCCOnLine Mad 6675

There is no quietus to this vexed issue as can be seen from the various decisions that were pronounced over the decades. The important judgments relied upon during the course of the submissions are the following:-

$i)$ The first of the decisions is of course the Kharak Singh case (3 supra). In this Constitution Bench judgement, the majority Judges held that the shadowing of the history sheeter for the purpose of recording his movements and activities for obtaining information is not prohibited by law and it was held that the freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India is not infringed by a watch being kept on the movements of the suspect. The regulation prescribing domiciliary visits was, however, struck down. The dissent of Justice K. Subba Rao for himself and Justice Shah which held that surveillance is bad is discussed later again in the judgement.

ii) In Dhanji Ram Sharma v Superintendent of Police, North Dist., Delhi Police and Ors.,11, three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had an occasion to judicially define a 'habitual offender'. However, while defining a habitual offender as one who is addicted to crime or a criminal by habit or disposition formed by repetition of crimes, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India sounded a note of caution stating that this belief must be based upon sufficient grounds and must be reasonable.

11 AIR 1966 SC 1766 = 1996 CrILJ 1486

In Gopalachari v State of Kerala12 a coordinate iii) Bench of three learned Judges held that as follows:

"To call a man dangerous is itself dangerous; to call a man desperate is to affix a desperate adjective to stigmatise a person as hazardous to the community is itself a judicial hazard unless compulsive testimony carrying credence is abundantly available."

$iv)$ In the case of Malak Singh (1 supra) also Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that surveillance has to be unobtrusive and within limits. It was noted that prevention of crime is one of the prime purposes of the constitution of a police force. It was held that if the surveillance is unobtrusive and within bounds it is permissible. At the same time the Hon'ble / Supreme Court of India clearly held in paragraphs 8 and 9 that the police do not have the licence to enter the names of whoever they like (dislike?).

The next judgement is the case of Gobind (9 supra). $v)$ In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India found that the regulations which the petitioner challenged were framed under a section of the Police Act and, therefore, they were held to be valid. The issue of privacy was also raised in this case, but the Supreme Court of India held that even if personal liberty etc., creates an independent right of privacy it can be subject to reasonable restrictions since regulations were found to have

12 AIR 1981 SC 674

force of law. However, in paragraph 33 the following was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India -

"...Mere convictions in criminal cases where nothing gravely imperilling the safety of society cannot be regarded as warranting surveillance under this regulation. Similarly, domiciliary visits and picketing by the police should be reduced to the clearest cases of danger to community security and not routine follow-up at the end of a conviction or release from prison or at the whim of a police officer. In truth, legality apart, these regulations ill-accord with the essence of personal freedoms and the State will do well to revise these old police regulations verging perilously near unconstitutionality."

Emphasis is supplied, because since 1975 nothing was done to follow this dictum of the highest court of the land. In fact, this court notices all the above mentioned judgments are virtually ignored in actual practice till date.

vi) In the State of Andhra Pradesh also, a habitual offender has been defined i.e., Kamma Bapuji case (8 supra) and Puttagunta Pasi v Commissioner of Police and Ors.,13. The second is a Division Bench Judgement and the Kamma Bapuji (8 supra) was also approved. In the case of Mohammed Quadeer (5 supra) the right of privacy was also discussed and it is held that the Police Standing Orders do not have statutory force, and the opening of a rowdy sheet may be in violation of Law and the Constitution.

13 1998 (3) ALT 55

vii) In B. Satyanarayana Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.,14 a Division Bench approved Kamma Bapuji (8 supra) and also held that a habitual offender is one who repeatedly or persistently commits the offence. A one-time offender / accused cannot be called a "habitual offender" as per the Division Bench.

viii) The Next important judgement for Andhra Pradesh is Sunkara Satyanarayana case (6 supra) wherein a learned single Judge went into the entire range of issues including the right to privacy long before the case of K.S.Puttaswamy (2 supra). He, however, held that the right to privacy is not expressly guaranteed under the Constitution of India as it exists but by a judicial interpretation it was held to be a guaranteed right. Ultimately, the learned single Judge gave directions about the manner in which unobtrusive surveillance should be carried out and what would be justified. He also set out the judicial remedies open to a person who has been deprived of this right. Learned single Judge held that if the surveillance is not obtrusive and does not in a material or palpable form affect the right of the suspect to move freely, it will not affect Article 21. Extensive directions were given in this judgement in Andhra Pradesh.

ix) In a large number of cases in the State of Andhra Pradesh orders were passed by this High Court holding that opening of a rowdy sheet against a person accused of a single

14 2003 Online AP 1013

$\mathbb{C}$

/ solitary crime is bad; that periodic review as stipulated in the Police Station Orders was not followed; that application of mind by the concerned is not visible etc. Such judgements on a case to case basis are being passed regularly by this High Court quashing / striking down the rowdy sheet due to the procedural and other lapses by the State.

x) The judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in State of Andhra Pradesh v N. Venugopal15 while dealing with the Madras Police Standing Orders also held that the Standing Orders are mere administrative instructions only and do not have the force of law.

The reason why these judgments are mentioned is because this Court notices that despite the law as it exists (the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the series of orders by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh), the police are still opening and continuing the rowdy sheets ignoring the settled law. Procedural lapses pointed out by the High Court are overlooked over and over again. The decisions in Dhanji Ram Sharma case (11 supra), Gopalachari case (12 supra) and B.Satyanarayana Reddy case (14 supra) are also completely ignored. Many people are labelled and branded as 'rowdies' without adequate grounds and/or credible material. The counters filed in the cases do not disclose the existence of credible material for branding the people as rowdies etc. Except stating the number of cases filed /pending and raising

15 AIR 1964 SC 33

a standard plea that no one is coming forward to complain, no credible material is filed either for branding a person as such or for continuing the rowdy sheet, for example in W.P.No.17453 of 2021 the petitioner was charged under Section 379 IPC in C.C.No.462 of 2014. This was compromised in the Lok Adalat on 05.12.2014. The rowdy sheet opened in August, 2014 is continuing. Similar is the predicament of the petitioners in W.P.No.20139 of 2021, wherein the FIR itself is quashed. In W.P.No.4814 of 2020 the case was compromised in Lok Adalat. Despite the authoritative pronouncements of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the Police Standing Orders do not have any statutory force, they are still relied upon by the respondent State for the purpose of opening and continuing the rowdy sheets. In the counters the State relies on the Police Standing Orders only. Despite there being no procedure or regulation the photographs of petitioners are being exhibited on the boards in the Police Stations. The cases are not "reviewed" as stipulated and orders of superior officers are not obtained. Despite findings of the Court acquitting them, the petitioners are still being called to the police station and paraded or made to wait for hours. In a majority of the cases in this batch the interim prayer is for an order not to call/summon the petitioner to the police station. The people involved in transportation of Tobacco produce are also being classified as rowdy sheeters. These are also not offences described under the Police Stating Orders. In W.P.No.25448 of

2021 the petitioner was acquitted in May, 2019. But the rowdy sheet is continuing. It is not clear how the Police have concluded that these petitioners are "habitual offenders" who are 'addicted' to crime and are likely to commit the crimes / become repeat offenders. Despite Kharak Singh case (3 supra) and Sunkara Satyanarayana case (6 supra), police still visit the houses of the petitioners/citizens. This is the state of affairs. In the lead case W.P.No.3568 of 2022 the petitioner is essentially charged under the FSS Act. Three out of five cases were quashed. Two similar crimes are still pending. In the counter affidavit filed itself the order No.601 is reproduced. It clearly shows that the petitioner will not fit within the 14 types of offences mentioned in paragraph 5. Even the condition mentioned in Standing Order No.602(2) which shows that the History Sheet can be continued if the SP/DCP/CP is of the considered view that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This suggestion should be based upon the credible material and cannot be subjective satisfaction. The necessary information, including the details which lead to the conclusion to continue the rowdy sheet is not visible from a reading of the counter.

K.S.PUTTASWAMY AND ITS IMPACT:

The issue on privacy is finally settled in the landmark judgement of K.S.Puttaswamy case (2 supra). The following are the conclusions of the learned Judges:

Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud on behalf of himself and the Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, Justice Agrawal and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer: (Para 313)

"313. Privacy has been held to be an intrinsic element of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a constitutional value which is embodied in the fundamental freedoms embedded in Part III of the Constitution. Like the right to life and liberty, privacy is not absolute. The limitations which operate on the right to life and personal liberty would operate on the right to privacy. Any curtailment or deprivation of that right would have to take place under a regime of law. The procedure established by law must be fair, just and reasonable. The law which provides for the curtailment of the right must also be subject to constitutional safeguards.

Justice Jasti Chelameswar - Para 375

"375. All liberal democracies believe that the State should not have unqualified authority to intrude into certain aspects of human life and that the authority should be limited by parameters constitutionally fixed. Fundamental rights are the only constitutional firewall to prevent State's interference with those core freedoms constituting liberty of a human being. The right to privacy is certainly one of the core freedoms which is to be defended. It is part of liberty within the meaning of that expression in Article 21."

Justice S.A.Bobde - Paras 428.2 and 428.3

"428.2. The right to privacy is inextricably bound up with all exercises of human liberty-both as it is specifically enumerated across Part III, and as it is guaranteed in the residue under Article 21. It is distributed across the various Articles in Part III and, mutatis mutandis, takes the form of whichever of their enjoyment its violation curtails.

428.3. Any interference with privacy by an entity covered by Article 12's description of the "State" must satisfy the tests applicable to whichever one or more of the Part III freedoms the interference effects."

Justice R.F.Nariman - para 526

"526. But this is not to say that such a right is absolute. This right is subject to reasonable regulations made by the State to protect legitimate State interests or public interest. However, when it comes to restrictions on this right, the drill of various articles to which the right relates must be scrupulously followed. For example, if the restraint on privacy is over fundamental personal choices that an individual is to make, State action can be restrained under Article 21 read with Article 14 if it is arbitrary and unreasonable; and under Article 21 read with Article $19(1)(a)$ only if it relates to the subjects mentioned in Article 19(2) and the tests laid down by this Court for such legislation or subordinate legislation to pass muster under the said article. Each of the tests evolved by this Court, qua legislation or executive action, under Article 21 read with Article 14; or Article 21 read with Article $19(1)(a)$ in the aforesaid examples must be met in order that State action pass muster. In the ultimate analysis, the balancing act that is to be carried out between individual, societal and State interests must be left to the training and expertise of the judicial mind."

Justice A.M. Sapre – 557

"557. In my considered opinion, "right to privacy of any individual" is essentially a natural right, which inheres in every human being by birth. Such right remains with the human being till he/she breathes their last. It is indeed inseparable and inalienable from human being. In other words, it is born with the human being and extinguishes with human being."

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul – Paras 639 and 650

The right to privacy as already observed is not absolute. The right to privacy as falling in Part III of the Constitution may, depending on its variable facts, vest in one part or the other, and would thus be subject to the restrictions of exercise of that particular fundamental right. National security would thus be an obvious restriction, so would the provisos to different fundamental rights, dependent on where the right to privacy would arise. The public interest element would be another aspect.
Let the right to privacy, an inherent right, be unequivocally a fundamental right embedded in Part III of the Constitution of India, but subject to the restrictions specified, relatable to that part. This is the call of today. The old order changeth yielding a place to new."

15) The final conclusions of this landmark judgement

are in para 652, which are reproduced hereunder -

"652. The reference is disposed of in the following terms: 652.1. The decision in M.P. Sharma [M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300] which holds that the right to privacy is not protected by the Constitution stands overruled;

652.2. The decision in Kharak Singh [Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295] to the extent that it holds that the right to privacy is not protected by the Constitution stands overruled. 652.3. The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.

652.4. Decisions subsequent to Kharak Singh [Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295] which have enunciated the position in para 652.3, above lay down the correct position in law."

Thus, in view of this authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India the right to privacy is now recognized as a Fundamental Right. It is an "inherent right", an "intrinsic right" that always exists and has been classified as a "primordial natural right". Therefore, it is crystal clear that the police orders or police action will have to be tested against the touchstone of the conclusions in this landmark judgement.
Justice R.F.Nariman in his book 'Discordant Notes' called Justice Koka Subba Rao as the Guardian of Fundamental Rights and as one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse for foreseeing the future tribulations. This guardian angel's dissent in Kharak Singh case (3 supra) has been expressly approved in K.S.Puttaswamy case (2 supra). This dissent as approved is the core of the submissions of many counsels and particularly Sri Raja Reddy K. On this basis he fervently submits that any surveillance without the backing of law is a clear infringement of Article $19/21$ . He lays stress on the conclusions in para-32/33 and argues that the "whole state" is a prison / jail if a person is under surveillance.
Actually a closer examination reveals that even before K.S.Puttaswamy (2 supra) the march of law in declaring "privacy" as a fundamental law is clearly visible from the following judgments:

19) In People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v.

Union of India16 it was held in para 17 as follows:

"17. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that right to privacy is a part of the right to 'life' and 'personal liberty' enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once the facts in a given case constitute a right to privacy, Article 21 is attracted. The said tight cannot be curtailed 'except according to procedure established by law'."

20) In Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re17 it was held

as follows:

"309. Privacy and dignity of human life has always been considered a fundamental human right of every human being like any other key values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. Therefore, every act which offends or impairs human dignity tantamounts to deprivation pro tanto of his right to live and the State action must be in accordance with reasonable, fair and just procedure established by law which stands the test of other fundamental rights. (Vide Francis Coralie Mullin v. UT of Delhi [(1981) 1 SCC 608 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 212 : AIR 1981 SC 746].)

The citizens/persons have a right to leisure, to sleep, not to hear and to remain silent. The knock at the door, whether by day or by night, as a prelude to a search without authority of law amounts to be police incursion into privacy and violation of fundamental right of a citizen. (See Wolf v. Colorado [93 L Ed 1782:338 US 25 (1949)].)
Right to privacy has been held to be a fundamental right of the citizen being an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India by this Court. Illegitimate intrusion into privacy of a person

&lt;sup>16 (1997) 1 SCC 301 $17$ (2012) 5 SCC 1

is not permissible as right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed under our Constitution. Such a right has been extended even to woman of easy virtues as she has been held to be entitled to her right of privacy. However, right of privacy may not be absolute and in exceptional circumstance particularly surveillance in consonance with the statutory provisions may not violate such a right."

K.S.Puttaswamy case (2 supra) dealt with all the issues raised and finally concluded the matter.
Once "privacy" is declared as a Fundamental Right, any restriction to be imposed on this primordial, intrinsic, natural Right can only be in terms of a "law" which meets the rigor of Article 13, which occurs in Part-III of the Constitution of India.
Articles 13 (2) and 13 (3) are reproduced hereunder:

"13. (2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.

(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires-

(a) "law" includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law;

(b) "laws in force" includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas."

Any such law which will or can place a restriction on this right of privacy shall also have to meet the following triple test as laid down in K.S.Puttaswamy case (2 supra) –

$(i)$ Legality, which postulates the existence of law;
$(ii)$ Need, defined in terms of a legitimate State aim; and
(iii) Proportionality, which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them."
$(iv)$ In addition, procedural guarantees against abuse should also be present.

Therefore, unless and until these tests or these thresholds are crossed the police in the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot deprive a man of his right to privacy with the Police Standing Orders.
The Police Standing orders in the State of AP were introduced as per G.O.Ms.No.308, dated 09.02.1960, amended/updated by G.O.Ms.No.201, dated 08.09.2001 and lastly revised on $14.02.2017$ . This is the current / prevalent version. It is stated very clearly in these three G.Os., that these orders are only "guidelines".
Admittedly, $as$ per G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 14.02.2017, the Manual with the Standing Orders are finally revised. It is stated very clearly in clause (1) - that these "Standing Orders" in the Manual do not supersede any statutory rules, regulations etc. As per Clause (2) these orders

$\perp$ ,

do not vest the police officers with any power not specifically conferred with the Cr.P.C., I.P.C., etc. It is clear that the Manual is only a guideline and procedure for all the police officers. Thus (apart from the authoritative case law) it is clear that the Police Standing Orders do not have any statutory force. They are not even regulations and are mere departmental instructions. It is clearly spelt out in all the three G.O.s, mentioned above that they will not supersede any rule or regulation. They are admittedly not framed under the Police Act, 1861 or any other such law.

As far as sufficiency of pleadings issue is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that sufficient pleadings have been raised. Infringement of Articles 14, 19 and 21 is specifically mentioned in many of the Writ Petitions. Even otherwise, the parties had ample opportunity spread over days for arguing the issue. The case law cited and considered makes it clear that the issue of infringement of Fundamental Rights was argued. All the facts necessary for determination are before this Court. Therefore, this Court holds that the adequacy of pleadings issue is not very material. This Court also draws the support from Union of India v Khas Karanpura Colliery Co. Ltd.,18 and Kedar Lal Seal v Hari Lal Seal19.

18 AIR 1969 SC 125 19 AIR 1952 SC 47

Therefore, as far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned -

a) It is reiterated that the Police Standing Orders do not have the force of law and they cannot be used as the means or the justification for opening and continuation of rowdy sheets. They are mere administrative guidelines...
b) Already in Mohammed Qadeer case (5 supra), Sunkara Satyanarayana case (6 supra), the Courts have held that these Standing Orders do not have force of law. These judgments have become final and have not been challenged. Therefore, there is no need for further 'declaration' on this as mentioned earlier.
c) Once the Police Standing Orders are held / declared to be without any statutory force in the State of Andhra Pradesh it is not necessary or needed for a party to seek a de novo declaration that the Standing Orders are contrary to law. However, such a prayer is made in W.P.No.3568 of 2022 and an Interlocutory Application (I.A.No.2 of 2022) was also filed to amend the prayer. The said application is also allowed and the prayer is amended. That such regulations/orders are bordering on unconstitutionality is noticed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also in 1975 itself. (Gobind case - 9 supra).

d) The Police Standing Orders do not also pass the tests stipulated in K.S.Puttaswamy case (2 supra).
e) The issues of infringement of Fundamental Rights are raised in many of these cases. That domiciliary visits are continuing is alleged. Display of photographs is also alleged. Summoning to the Police Station; being asked to wait for hours; branding a person as "rowdy" contrary to law etc., are all urged. Difficulties faced for simple issues like getting a passport due to the pendency of a rowdy sheet are also urged. Persons involved in a single but simple offence are branded as habitual offenders. There are also glaring violations and disobedience of the judicial orders passed. Application of mind is not visible as per PSO $600(2)$ etc., and periodic review as per PSO 602 (1 and 2) is also not visible.

However, the compelling State interest, which is so well argued and articulated by Sri V. Maheswar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home, cannot be totally lost sight of by this Court and needs to be answered. This compelling State interest is the need of the State and the police to prevent the crime. The "surveillance" and the opening of rowdy sheets is

justified by the learned Government Pleader for Home on the ground that the collection of this data and information is necessary for the purpose of detection of a crime before it occurs.

This Court cannot be oblivious to this compelling State need or that this procedure has been in vogue for decades. However, it must be said again that the efforts to "prevent" crime do not meet the test of law. The issue is about the use / misuse of the information and the abuse of power. Unobtrusive surveillance, gathering of information through lawful means was not prohibited. In fact, it was held necessary to prevent crime in the earlier cases. The indiscriminate use of this information; the night visits; frequent calling to the police station; display of photographs is the issue, despite the clear judgments.
Sri Maheswar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home sought to get over the judgment of K.S.Puttaswamy (2 supra) by stating that the factual context in the said judgment is different. He also relied upon the compilation of judgments which he had furnished including the judgments of Gobind and Malak Singh cases (9 and 1 supra) etc., to substantiate his case that these judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted certain actions of the Police like surveillance etc. Therefore, he sought to justify the police action in the present case. In the case of Gobind (9 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the regulations were traceable to

Section 46(2) (c) the Police Act. In Malak Singh's case (1 supra), the vires of the rules was not challenged. However, in the State of Andhra Pradesh, it is clear the standing orders are not framed under any statute. They were already held to be without any statutory force. Apart from this, it is noticed by close analysis of the judgment of the learned Judges in K.S.Puttaswamy (2 supra) that their Lordships considered the subject. Issues about entire law on the privacy/surveillance etc., were raised in the submissions of the learned counsels and also considered by the learned Judges. The lead judgment of Justice Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud discusses the upholding of the minority view in Kharak Singh case (3 supra) etc., by the judgments in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper $v$ . Union of India etc.. He clearly points out in para 22 by supplying emphasis that the minority view in Kharak Singh case (3 supra) case was upheld in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India20 case. Thereafter, from paras 51 to 104, there is a discussion about the various judgments on the subject including Gobind and Malak Singh cases (9 and 1 supra) etc. His Lordship further traced the growth of law under various heads and ultimately while discussing 'discordant notes'; in the case of ADM Jabalpur, he quoted the dissenting opinion of His Lordship H.R.Khanna and clearly held that even in the absence of Article 21, it would not be permissible for the State to deprive a person of his life and liberty without the

20 (1978) 1 SCC 248

authority of law. Thereafter, His Lordship held that ADM Jabalpur has to be overruled. After further examining the matter and the growth of law including a comparative study with the law in other countries, in para 326 His Lordship held as follows:

"326. Like other rights which form part of the fundamental freedoms protected by Part III, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, privacy is not an absolute right. A law which encroaches upon privacy will have to withstand the touchstone of permissible restrictions on fundamental rights. In the context of Article 21 an invasion of privacy must be justified on the basis of a law which stipulates a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable. The law must also be valid with reference to the encroachment on life and personal liberty under Article 21. An invasion of life or personal liberty must meet the three-fold requirement of (i) legality, which postulates the existence of law; (ii) need, defined in terms of a legitimate state aim; and (iii) proportionality which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them;"

Thereafter, His Lordship Justice Jasti Chelameswar did a very similar analysis and proceeded to examine the salient features of the minority view in Kharak Singh case (3 supra) at para 342. He endorsed the view expressed by Justice Nariman and thereafter analysed the law on the subject. Ultimately, in para 374 and 375 his lordship held as follows page 531:

$\sim$

"374. I do not think that anybody in this country would like to have the officers of the State intruding into their homes or private property at will or

$\epsilon$ $\perp$ $\cdot$

soldiers quartered in their houses without their consent. I do not think that anybody would like to be told by the State as to what they should eat or how they should dress or whom they should be associated with either in their personal, social or political life. Freedom of social and political association is guaranteed to citizens under Article $19(1)(c)$ . Personal association is still a doubtful area. The decision making process regarding the freedom of association, freedoms of travel and residence are purely private and fall within the realm of the right of privacy. It is one of the most intimate decisions. 375. All liberal democracies believe that the State should not have unqualified authority to intrude into certain aspects of human life and that the authority should be limited by parameters constitutionally fixed. Fundamental rights are the only constitutional firewall to prevent State's interference with those core freedoms constituting liberty of a human being. The right to privacy is certainly one of the core freedoms which is to be defended. It is part of liberty within the meaning of that expression in Article 21."

All the other learned Judges also agreed with the conclusions.
Therefore, the contention of learned Government Pleader that the Police Standing Orders cannot be struck down only on the findings of K.S.Puttaswamy (2 supra) does not appear to be correct. K.S.Puttaswamy's case (2 supra) is not merely relating to "data protection or aadhar card". The entire gamut of issues involving 'privacy' has been discussed and concluded. The cases relied on by the State in the present batch and issues of surveillance vis-a-vis 'privacy' were elaborately discussed. Therefore, since this is now the law of

the land, as declared by the Constitution Bench, it has to be followed.

The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., v P. Laxmi Devi21 gives a useful direction to this Court to conclude this issue.

"34. In India the grundnorm is the Indian Constitution, and the hierarchy is as follows:

(i) The Constitution of India;

(ii) Statutory law, which may be either law made by Parliament or by the State Legislature;

(iii) Delegated legislation, which may be in the form of rules made under the statute, regulations made under the statute, etc.;

(iv) Purely executive orders not made under any statute. $\ddagger$

If a law (norm) in a higher layer in the above hierarchy clashes with a law in a lower layer, the former will prevail. Hence a constitutional provision will prevail over all other laws, whether in a statute or in delegated legislation or in an executive order. The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and no law which is in conflict with it can survive. Since the law made by the legislature is in the second layer of the hierarchy, obviously it will be invalid if it is in conflict with a provision in the Constitution (except the directive principles which, by Article 37, have been expressly made non-enforceable).

The duty of a Constitutional Court is also spelt out in this very judgment as follows:

It may be noted that there were no fundamental rights in the Government of India Act, 1935. The Founding Fathers of our Constitution, who were also

21 (2008) 4 SCC 720

freedom fighters for India's Independence, knew the value of these rights, and that is why they incorporated them in the Constitution.

It must be understood that while a statute is made by the peoples' elected representatives, the Constitution too is a document which has been created by the people (as is evident from the Preamble). The courts are guardians of the rights and liberties of the citizens, and they will be failing in their responsibility if they abdicate this solemn duty towards the citizens. For this, they may sometimes have to declare the act of the executive or the legislature as unconstitutional.

.........

. . . . . . . . .

In Ghani v. Jones [(1970) 1 QB 693 : (1969) 3 WLR 1158: (1969) 3 All ER 1700 (CA)] Lord Denning observed; (All ER p. 1706 A-B)

"... A man's liberty of movement is regarded so highly by the law of England that it is not to be hindered or prevented except on the surest grounds."

The above observation has been quoted with approval by a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248] (vide SCC para 64 : AIR para 99).

..........

98. ...... It is the solemn duty of the courts to uphold the civil rights and liberties of the citizens against executive or legislative invasion, and the court cannot sit quiet in this situation, but must play an activist role in upholding civil liberties and the fundamental rights in Part III, vide Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1993) 1 SCC 22], Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. [(1994) 4 SCC 260 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1172 : AIR 1994 SC 1349], D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) 1 SCC 416: 1997 SCC (Cri) 92: AIR 1997 SC 610], etc."

In view of the clear case law including but not limited to K.S.Puttaswamy case (2 supra) and the absolute

failure to follow the settled law this Court has to conclude as follows:

This collection of photos; the display of photos; branding a person as "rowdy"; summoning to the Police Station, parading / waiting domiciliary/home visits etc., as per the Police Station Orders are a direct infringement of the petitioners' right to privacy. Henceforth with the existing Police Standing Orders the police cannot do the same. The police cannot summon any person to the Police Station, visit any home or house for surveillance; for gathering information, take or display photographs, fingerprints etc., or even classify/ label a person as a ROWDY etc. They cannot carry out intrusive or obtrusive surveillance. Sunkara Satyanarayana case (6 supra) also has to be read subject to K. Puttaswamy (2 supra), which is by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India.

The judgements of the Learned Judges of the Telangana; Karnataka and Madras High Courts are not relied upon because the A.P. Police Standing Orders were declared by this High Court as 'non-statutory'. This Court is bound by the same. This Court has to hold that the same cannot be used as a justification for opening or continuing the rowdy sheets. The action of calling a person to the Police Station etc., taking photograph; display of photos etc., are thus a direct violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
In addition, keeping in view the compelling state need for prevention of crime, the following directions are also issued:

(a) The State should either frame statutory rules or enact a law within a short time on these issues of surveillance etc., since there is a need for gathering information / intelligence to prevent crime. This should be done on a high priority. The comment made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gobind case (9 supra) is that "In truth, legality apart, these regulations ill-accord with the essence of personal freedoms and the State will do well to revise these old police regulations verging perilously near unconstitutionality".

Even after about 45 years it transpires that the State did not revise the old Police regulations which were held to be very close to unconstitutionality". It is hoped that the State would urgently frame an appropriate law on this subject keeping in view the laws on the subject including the aspect of 'privacy' being declared a Fundamental Right.

(b) This Court also notices that Chapter-VIII of the Cr.P.C., is hardly being invoked by the Police. This provides for obtaining security for keeping the peace and for good behaviour i.e., to prevent crime. The various Sections 106, 111 and other sections of this

Part of the Cr.P.C., are in the opinion of this Court enough to meet the apprehension of the police that they should know about the activities of the people, who are classified as rowdies etc., and for preventing crime. In fact, Sections 107 and 109 Cr.P.C., deal with people, who are likely to commit a crime, which is a cognizable offence or disturb the public tranquillity etc., and to take preventive steps. Similarly, Section 110 (a) to (g) of Cr.P.C., also deals with 'habitual offenders'. These Sections also provide some procedural safeguards. Their efficacy and use has been recognised and upheld in cases like Madhu Limaye v Sub-Divisional Magistrate22. Therefore, for the present, this Court is of the opinion that if the Police are of the opinion that a check must be kept on the activities of the habitual offenders or others likely to commit a crime and to prevent a crime the provisions of this Chapter must be utilised. This is also clearly mentioned in Chapter 38 of the Police Manual but it is not followed. Similarly, the police can also encourage the people mentioned in Section 40 of the Cr.P.C., (with regard to villages and panchayats) to furnish the information as required under this Section.

22 AIR 1971 SC 2486

(c) The provisions of other laws like the A.P. Habitual Offenders Act 1962 can also be utilised for the registration of habitual offenders (Sec.3 and 4) collect their fingerprints, photographs, palm impressions, foot prints etc., (Sec.6) and also place restrictions on his movement (Sec. 11).
(d) A further legal solution is also found in the Cr.P.C., (Identification) Act, 2022 (for short "Act 11 of 2022"). The objects of the Act are as follows:

"An Act to authorise for taking measurements of convicts and other persons for the purpose of identification and investigation in criminal matters and to preserve records and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto."

(e) 'Measurement' is defined in Section 2(b) of Act 11 of

2022 as follows:

"measurements" includes finger-impressions, palmimpressions, foot-print impressions, print photographs, iris and retina scan, physical, biological samples and their analysis, behavioural attributes including signatures, handwriting or any other examination referred to in section 53 or section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973"

(f) Section 3 is as follows:

"3. Any person, who has been -

(a) convicted of an offence punishable under any law for the time being in force; or

(b) ordered to give security for his good behaviour or maintaining peace under section 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for a proceeding under section 107 or section 108 or section 109 or section 110 of the said Code; or

(c) arrested in connection with an offence punishable under any law for the time being in force or detained under any preventive detention law, shall, if so required, allow his measurement to be taken by a police officer or a prison officer in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government or the State Government:

Provided that any person arrested for an offence committed under any law for the time being in force (except for an offence committed against a woman or a child or for any offence punishable with imprisonment for a period not less than seven years) may not be obliged to allow taking of his biological samples under the provisions of this section.

(g) Section 5 is as follows:

$e + e$

"Where the Magistrate is satisfied that, for the purpose of any investigation or proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force, it is expedient to direct any person to give measurements under this Act, the Magistrate may make an order to that effect and in that case, the person to whom the order relates shall allow the measurements to be taken in conformity with such directions".

Section 5 provides for judicial intervention / supervision and thus there are certain inherent safeguards in this to meet the legal due process test.
These suggestions are made as the provisions of the existing laws mentioned above give enough scope for the police to gather the information and also to take action necessary for the purpose of prevention of crime.
The correct method is to enact a "law" permitting the surveillance etc., for gathering information only.
It is also made clear that in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ending with the case of K.S.Puttaswamy case (2 supra) and as the Police Standing Orders are not law and do not meet the rigorous standards prescribed, the summoning to the station, intrusive surveillance, display of photographs etc., will amount to a breach of the Fundamental Right of privacy. It will also amount to wilful disobedience of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which is the law of the land. It will also be a violation of the earlier orders passed by this Court. The officers who are not party to these writs may also be in contempt of court if they still follow the A.P. Police Standing Orders.
Hence, the Writ Petition No.3568 of 2022 is allowed declaring the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual / A.P. Police Standing Orders to the extent of opening/continuation of Rowdy Sheet, Suspect Sheet, History Sheet etc., and on that basis the surveillance of the individual (in terms of Chapter 37 of the above said Standing Orders) as void. All the other Writ Petitions are also allowed. All the rowdy sheets opened in this batch of Writ Petitions are directed to be closed immediately. The police cannot open or continue a rowdy sheet or collect data pertaining to a person without the sanction of "law". Collection of personal data and its usage for prevention of crimes also can only be in accordance with a "law" which crosses the thresholds mentioned in the Constitution of India

and the various judgments including K.S.Puttaswamy case (2 supra) since 'privacy' is now a Fundamental Right as per Part-III of the Constitution of India. It is reiterated that the police cannot (under the existing orders) indulge in night visits; domiciliary visits to the houses of a suspect or accused. They cannot take or demand the photographs, fingerprints etc., except under the procedure established by a 'law' and if the conditions laid down are satisfied. Accused or suspects cannot be summoned or called to the Police Station or anywhere else either during festivals / elections/ weekends etc. They cannot be made to wait at the Police Stations for any reason or seek permission to leave the local jurisdiction.

In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

SD/- A. VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

[One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, For his Lordships Kind Perusal]

$\mathsf{To}_{\mathsf{1}}$

$r \times s$

The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravati. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

District, Andhra Pragesn. 31. The Circle Inspector of Police, Y. Palem Circle, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. 32. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dornala Police Station, Dornala, Prakasam Distri

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anakapalli Sub-Division, Vishakapatnam District.

$\lambda$ $\lambda$ $\beta$

1. The Station House Officer, Anakapalli Town PS, Vishakapatnam District.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
3. The Station House Officer, IV Town Police Sta
Visakhapatnam.
VISAKNAPATNAM. 49. The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District, Kadapa. 50. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 51. The Station House Officer, Y
Guntur District. 56. The Station House Officer, Nallapadu Police Station, Nallapadu, Guntur, Guntur
District. 57. The Director General of Police, Director General of Police Office, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
1. The Superintendent of Police, Collector Office Rd, R & B Quaters, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Collector Office Rd, R & B Quarters, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.
1. The Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram Police Station Guntur, Guntur District.
1. The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
2. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.
3. The Station Hause Officer, Neiderst Beller, Officer, Nei
1. The Station House Officer, Naidupet Police Station, Nellore District. 64. The Station House Officer, Gudur II Town Police Station, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.
1. Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam. 66. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Anakapalli Visakhapatnam.
ob. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Anakapalit Visakhapatham. 67. The Station House Officer, Bheemili Police Station, Visakhapatham District. 68. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kavali, SPS
1. Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District.
2. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Peddapuram, East Godavari District.
3. The Station House Officer, Tuni Town Police statio
1. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Rural, SPSR Nellore District.78. The Station House Officer, Kovur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District.
1. The Commissioner of Police, Guntur Police Commissionerate, Guntur The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Division, Guntur City, Guntur District.
1. The Station House Officer, Chilakaluripet Police Station, Guntur District.
The Station House Officer, Chilakalurpet Police Station, Guntur District The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Darsi, Prakasam Di
1. The Station House Officer, Kasapuram Police Station, Anantapur District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuram District, A.P.
1. The Station House Officer, B.K Samudram Police Station Ananthapuram District, $A.P$
1. The Director General of Police, Office at Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
2. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
3. The Station House Officer, Payaka Visakhapatnam District.
1. The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada Police Comissionerate, Vijayawada. 94. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, West Division, Vijayawada City, Krishna District
1. The Station House Officer, Bhavanipuram Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District.
1. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Peddapuram, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.
1. The Station House Officer of Prathipadu Police Station, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh
1. The Sub-Divisional Police officer, Tadipatri Division.
2. The Circle Inspector of Police, Tadipathri Town.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Proddatur Division, Kadapa District.

$\epsilon \times \epsilon$

The Station House Office, Rajupalein Police Station, Proddatur Division, 101. Kadapa District. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chirala, Prakasam District. The Station House Officer, Inkollu Police Station, Prakasam District. Sub Divisional Police Officer-cum-Deputy Superinte 102. 103. 104 Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District 5. Station House Officer, Bikkavole Police Station, East Godavari District. 105. 106. Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District at Eluru. Sub Divisional Police Officer, cum-Deputy Superintendent of Police, 107 Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District. 108. Station House Officer, Dhannajigude Police Station, West Godavari District. 109 The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Guntakal Division, AnantapuramDistrict, Andhra Pradesh 110 The Station House Officer, Kasapuram PS, Anantapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh $111$ The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dhone, Sub-Division, Kurnool District. $112$ The Station House Officer (C.I), Dhone Police Station, Dhone, Kurnool District. The State of A.P., Rep.by the Secretary for Home Nelapadu, A.P. The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor. The Superintendent Police Officer. Puttur, Chittoor District. $113.$ $114.$ 115. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Puttur, Chittoor District. The Inspector of Police, Sathyavedu Circle, Chittoor District. The Station House Officer, Varadhaiapalem P.S, Chittoor District. The Station House Officer, Tada 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126 House Officer, Peddavaduguru Station, The Station Police Peddavaduguru, Anantapur District. The Superintendent of Pol Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 127. Police, Visakhapatnam District Rural. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, West Sub Division, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. 128. 129. The Inspector of Police, Pendurthi Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. 130. The Station House officer, Pendurthi Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. 131. The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada -533 005, East Godavari District. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Amalapuram 533 201 East 132 Godavari District. 133. The Station House Officer, Mummidivaram P.S., Mummidivaram - 533 216 East Godavari District. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. The Inspector of Police, Amadalavalasa Circle, Amadal 134. 135. 136 Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sarubujjili Police Station, Srikakulam District. The Station House Officer, Yellanur Police Station, Anantapur District. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Guntur City, Guntur District. The Dep 137. $138.$ 139. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Guntur East, Guntur. The Station House Officer, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur District. The Station House Officer, Chinaganjam, Prakasam District 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. The Inspector of Police Korukonda, (V and M) East Godavari District. The Station House officer Korukonda P.S, Korukonda Mandal East 150 Godavari District. 151. One CC to SRI. R. RAMANJANEYULU Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Fourteen CCs to SRI. RAJA REDDY KONETI Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI. K.S. MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL [OPUC] 152. 153. 154.

155.<br>156.<br>157.<br>158.<br>159.<br>160.<br>161.<br>162.<br>163.<br>164.<br>165.<br>166.<br>167.<br>168.<br>169.<br>170.<br>171.<br>172.<br>173.<br>174.<br>175.<br>176.<br>177.<br>178.<br>179.<br>180.<br>181.<br>182.<br>183.<br>184.<br>185.	One CC to SRI. O. MANOHAR REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. V.V SATISH, Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. A.K. KISHORE REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. P.S.P. SURESH KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. A.K. KISHORE REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. G. RAJ KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. P.B. VIJAY KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. N. SIVA REDDY Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. B. SIVARIES PARASSIS [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. B.V. ANJANEYULU Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. C. RAGHU Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. C. RAGHU Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. HARINATH REDDY SOMA Advocate [OPUC]<br>O<br>One CC to SRI. C. SUBODH Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. CH. BHANU PRASAD Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. G. ESWARAIAH Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. G. ESVVARAIAN Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. KOLLURI ARJUN CHOWDARY Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SMT. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. HARISH KUMAR RASINENI, Advocate [OPUC]<br>One CC to SRI. POSA<br>One CC to SRI. D.S.N.V. PRASAD BABU, Advocate [OPUC]<br>9 L.R. Copies.
186.	The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and
	Company Affairs, New Delhi.
187.	The Secretary, A.P. Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings,
Amaravati.
188.	Two CD Copies
C

$\mathsf{Chp}^{\mathsf{18}}$

$\overline{41}$

HIGH COURT

DATED: 15/07/2022

COMMON ORDER

WRIT PETITION Nos: 21247, 26239, 31949, 32683 & 40632 of 2016, 11468, 31311 of 2017, 3721, 8473 of 2019, 6144, 19071, 23238, 23246, 23665 of 2020, 3919, 4212, 7309, 17453, 20139, 20220, 25363, 25448, 25451, 30789, 31142, 31212, 31405 of 2021, 1802, 2007, 2634, 3568, 3588, 3647, 4010, 4461, 4814, 5128, 5322, 5573, 5633, 5707, 5776, 5811, 6048, 6107, 6228, 6281, 6351, 6364, 6393, 6683, 6713, 6797, 6948, 7202, 7543, 7832 of 2022

ALLOWING THE W.Ps. WITHOUT COSTS

A.Rajendra Prasad vs. The Station House Officer

AI Summary

Order Issued After Hearing

Original Order Copy

Order Text

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

W.P. No. 21247 of 2016

Between:

AND

...RESPONDENTS

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 26063 OF 2016)

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI, R. RAMANJANEYULU

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No: 26239 of 2016

Between:

...PETITIONERS

...RESPONDENTS

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 32456 OF 2016)

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 54244 OF 2017)

W.P. No: 31949 of 2016

Between:

AND

...RESPONDENTS

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 39513 OF 2016)

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI, K S MURTHY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No: 32683 of 2016

Between:

...PETITIONER

AND

...RESPONDENTS

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 40454 OF 2016)

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No: 40632 of 2016

Between:

...PETITIONER

AND

...RESPONDENTS

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 50049 OF 2016)

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. G. RAJKUMAR

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 11468 of 2017

Between:

AND

...RESPONDENTS

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 14270 OF 2017)

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. P B VIJAY KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 31311 of 2017

Between:

...PETITIONER

AND

...RESPONDENTS

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 39013 OF 2017)

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI, N. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 3721 of 2019

Between:

AND

...RESPONDENTS

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. N. SIVA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No. 8473 of 2019

Between:

...PETITIONER

AND

...RESPONDENTS

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. PEETA RAMAN

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

W.P. No: 6144 of 2020

Between:

...PETITIONER

AND

...RESPONDENTS