Common Judgment:

1. These five Writ Petitions, arising out of a similar cause of action, of course, filed by different Petitioners, have been heard and disposed of by way of this common Judgment.

2. The Writ Petition No.2315 of 2026 has been filed seeking the following relief:-

                  “… 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 the rowdy sheet against the petitioner vide 126 /2013 on the file of 5th respondent is illegal arbitary and unconstitutional and in violation of principals of natural justice and consequently quash/setaside the rowdy sheet pending against the petitioner vide 126 /2013 on the file of 5th respondent and to pass….”

3. The Writ Petition No.2319 of 2026 has been filed seeking the following relief:-

                  “… 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 the rowdy sheet against the petitioner vide 129 /2013 on the file of 5th respondent is illegal arbitary and unconstitutional and in violation of principals of natural justice and consequently quash/setaside the rowdy sheet pending against the petitioner vide 129 /2013 on the file of 5th respondent and to pass…”

4. The Writ Petition No.2320 of 2026 has been filed seeking the following relief:-

                  “… 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 the rowdy sheet against the petitioner vide 124 /2013 on the file of 5th respondent is illegal arbitary and unconstitutional and in violation of principals of natural justice arvd consequently quash/setaside the rowdy sheet pending against the petitioner vide 124 /2013 on the file of 5th respondent and to pass…”

5. The Writ Petition No.2324 of 2026 has been filed seeking the following relief:-

                  “… 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 the rowdy sheet against the petitioner vide 125 /2013 on the file of 5th respondent is illegal arbitary and unconstitutional and in violation of principals of natural justice and consequently quash/setaside the rowdy sheet pending against the petitioner vide 125 /2013 on the file of 5th respondent and to pass…”

6. The Writ Petition No.2395 of 2026 has been filed seeking the following relief:-

                  “… 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 the rowdy sheet against the petitioner vide 128 /2013 on the file of 5th respondent is illegal arbitary and unconstitutional and in violation of principals of natural justice and consequently quash/set aside the rowdy sheet pending against the petitioner vide 128 /2013 on the file of 5th respondent and to pass…”

7. The common grievance of the Petitioners in all these Writ Petitions is that despite the fact that the only criminal case registered against them in Crime No.49/2013 on the file of the Respondent No.5/police culminated in Sessions Case No.335/2014 before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Adoni and ended in acquittal on 09.12.2020, and despite there being no other criminal antecedents either before or after that case, the Respondent/police have continued to maintain rowdy sheets against them vide Rowdy Sheet Nos.126/2013, 129/2013, 124/2013, 125/2013, and 128/2013 respectively. The continuance of such rowdy sheets, according to the Petitioners, is manifestly arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Petitioners assert that they are daily labourers eking out their livelihood, and under the guise of counselling in connection with the said rowdy sheets, they are being frequently summoned to the police station, compelled to sit there for hours together, thereby suffering mental harassment and loss of livelihood. Despite several oral and written representations, including those dated 20.12.2025, no action has been taken by the authorities to close the rowdy sheets, leaving the Petitioners remediless.

8. In these circumstances, the Petitioners contend that they have no efficacious alternative remedy except to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They seek issuance a direction to quash the said rowdy sheets. They further seek for consequential directions restraining the Respondents from summoning or calling them to the police station under the pretext of surveillance or otherwise on the basis of the rowdy sheets.

9. Per contra, Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, contends that notwithstanding the acquittal of the Petitioners, their alleged propensity for repeated involvement in unlawful activities poses a continuing threat to public order and communal tranquillity. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the initiation and continued retention of the impugned rowdy sheets stand fortified by the enabling provisions of Standing Order No.601(A) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders, the said measures having been invoked in exercise of preventive and supervisory jurisdiction with a view to obviate potential future infractions.

10. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners have been acquitted in the heinous prosecution. Admittedly, no criminal case is pending against them as of now. In such circumstances, the continuation of the rowdy sheets, which were initially opened when the Petitioners is wholly unjustified. The Respondents ought to have closed the rowdy sheets upon acquittal. The vague assertion that the Petitioners' activities are prejudicial to public interest and pose threat to the locality is unsupported by any cogent material. Mere bald allegations, sans substantive evidence, cannot justify the continuation of such coercive measures. Hence, the impugned action is unsustainable in law.

11. In pari materia, this Court in Tadiboyina Peraiah @ Mahesh v. State of A.P(2021 (2) ALT (Crl.) 161) held that when no crimes are pending against a person and no material is produced to demonstrate threat to public peace, continuation of a rowdy sheet under Standing Order No. 601 or 602(2) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders is impermissible.

12. Similarly, in Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh(2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP)), a Coordinate Bench categorically observed that rowdy sheets cannot be opened in a casual or mechanical manner. Mere dubbing of an individual as a habitual offender is insufficient. The Police must exercise due care and caution before branding a person as a rowdy, and the essential consideration is whether the acts of such person have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquillity.

13. A careful reading of these precedents clearly indicates that the creation or continuation of rowdy sheet requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards and regular review by the statutorily designated authorities. The Respondents are duty-bound to examine whether the alleged misconduct genuinely affects public peace. In the present case, the Petitioners have been acquitted in Sessions Case No.335/2014 before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Adoni and no other case is pending against them. In such circumstances, the continuation of the impugned rowdy sheet amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power and constitutes an abuse of process.

14. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, declaring that the continuation of the impugned Rowdy Sheet Nos.126/2013, 129/2013, 124/2013, 125/2013, and 128/2013 respectively against the Petitioners is illegal. The Respondent authorities are directed to forthwith close the said rowdy sheet opened against the Petitioners.

15. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. However, it is made clear that the Respondent/Police authorities shall be at liberty to invoke the powers conferred under Standing Order No.601 or Standing Order No.602(2) of the A.P.Police Standing Orders against the Petitioners, if it is found that Petitioners fall within any of the circumstances enumerated in the aforesaid Standing Orders.

16. In the result, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.