MANIVANNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a tailor by profession, had been branded as a rowdy element by the 3rd respondent and accordingly, a rowdy sheet was opened against him as per Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order vide PSO 749. Contending that opening of such rowdy sheet against him is a serious violation of his personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.

(2.) This writ petition was admitted on 11.12.2002 and from then onwards, this writ petition has been pending. In the meanwhile, as per the Tamil Nadu PSO 748, extension orders were passed periodically every year by the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned. The movement of the petitioner was checked every month by the Sub Inspector of Police and the same was also duly recorded in the rowdy sheet. From the records placed before me, it is seen that though initially it was opened as rowdy sheet, at one stage, it has taken the shape of a history sheet. No reason what so ever has been stated for the change: At this stage, it needs to be mentioned that a history sheet is opened under the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order 746 on certain grounds in Form No. 111 whereas, a rowdy sheet is opened under PSO 749 (2) in Form No. 112. As I have already pointed out, in this case, at the end, of every English Calendar year, the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned had passed order which uniformly read as follows:-

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General and also perused the records placed today before this Court carefully.