WP/22872/2007 of S.Thimmappa, Vs the Director General of Police, on 27 December 2007

Order:

In this writ petition, petitioner seeks declaration by way ofMandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not openingrowdy sheets against the persons whose names were proposed by thefourth respondent to the third respondent as illegal, arbitrary andcontrary to the provisions of the A.P. Police Standing Orders and aconsequential direction to the respondents to take suitable disciplinaryaction against the third respondent in pursuance of the memo dated21-07-2006 issued in Rc.No.142/IGP/L&O/RR/2006.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated thatpetitioner is a resident of Peddakadabur village of Kurnool District andbelongs to ‘Padmashali’ community, which is classified as a BackwardClass. It is alleged that though the fourth respondent, Sub-Inspector of Police, Peddakadabur, has identified some persons and sent proposals to the third respondent for opening of rowdy sheetsin the month of May, 2006, however, the third respondent did not passany orders granting permission for opening of rowdy sheets againstthose persons. It is also stated that for such a failure, memo dated 21-07-2006 was issued to the third respondent, but no further disciplinaryaction has been taken. On the aforesaid allegations, the petitionerseeks directions for opening of rowdy sheets against the persons whowere proposed by the fourth respondent and also for initiatingdisciplinary proceedings against the third respondent.

3. Respondent No.2, Inspector General of Police (Law andOrder), Rayalaseema Region, has filed counter affidavit. Whilegenerally denying the allegations of the petitioner, it is stated that thefourth respondent has sent proposals for opening of rowdy sheetsagainst 12 persons, but, however, the persons whose names havebeen proposed for opening rowdy sheets do not attract the provisionsof new Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Police Manual. Therefore, thethird respondent did not give permission for opening of rowdy sheetson the persons proposed by the fourth respondent.

4. Heard Sri B. Purushothama Reddy, learned counsel for thepetitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing forthe respondents.

5. From the material on record, it appears that prior to local bodyelections in the year 2006, certain proposals were sent by the fourthrespondent identifying 12 persons for opening of rowdy sheets againstthem, in his jurisdiction. On the ground that the said information wasnot correctly apprised to the second respondent, second respondentissued memo dated 21-07-2006 to the third respondent. The saidmemo is in the nature of a show cause notice calling for theexplanation of the third respondent as to why suitable disciplinaryaction should not be initiated against him.

6. Opening of rowdy sheets, history sheets etc., is governed byPolice Standing Order 742, but, however, in its place, new StandingOrder 601 was brought into force. Various categories andclassifications are contemplated for opening of rowdy sheets.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that thepersons whose names were proposed by the fourth respondent arecontinuously involving in various serious crimes and as such they arehabitual offenders within the meaning of Standing Order No.601 and inspite of the same, third respondent is shielding them and is not actingupon the said proposals for extraneous considerations.

8. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned GovernmentPleader for Home that, on the proposals sent by the fourth respondent,third respondent has reviewed and assessed the proposals, as per theStanding Orders. It is stated that as the proposed names did not attractthe provisions under Standing Order No.601 of the Police Manual, noorders were issued granting permission for opening of rowdy sheets.

9. The petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition,has not furnished any particulars with regard to involvement in theoffences by the persons whose names were proposed by the fourthrespondent for opening of rowdy sheets. In the absence of anyparticulars showing the involvement of such persons in any crimesrecently, they cannot be termed as habitual offenders so as to openrowdy sheets against them. When it is stated by the competentauthority who is empowered to order for opening of rowdy sheets thaton assessment, the proposals sent by the fourth respondent are not inconformity with Standing Order No.601, for opening of rowdy sheetsagainst those persons, petitioner cannot seek any directions by way ofMandamus to open rowdy sheets against such persons whose nameswere proposed by the fourth respondent. It is also to be noted furtherthat such of the persons are not before this Court and are notimpleaded as party respondents. Even with regard to taking up any disciplinary action against the third respondent, it is a matter ofassessment by the competent authority on the misconduct alleged. When it is stated in the counter affidavit that even on the assessmentmade by the second respondent on the proposals of the fourthrespondent, the same did not attract the provisions of Standing OrderNo.601, no direction also can be issued for initiating disciplinary actionagainst the third respondent.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, no directions as prayed for can begranted either for opening of rowdy sheets on the proposals sent bythe fourth respondent or for initiating any disciplinary action against thethird respondent. But, however, it is to be seen that the petitioner hasnot given any particulars in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition about the involvement of the persons whose names have beenproposed for opening of rowdy sheets in any crimes recently. But, inthe reply affidavit, he has given some particulars about the same. Insuch event, it is open for the petitioner to bring the same to the noticeof respondents 2 and 3 and it is also equally open for the respondentsto take steps in accordance with the Police Standing Orders.

11. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition isdisposed of. No order as to costs.

December 27,2007MRR

__________________________

JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY.