AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned Government Advocate, to accept notice for respondents No. 1 to 4 and file memo of appearance in four weeks.
The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to delete the name of the petitioner from the Rowdy
Register maintained by respondent No.4 on taking note of the representation
The petitioner claims to belong to a respectable family and he contends that he is not involved in any criminal activities. He contends that despite
the said position, for reasons unknown to the petitioner his name was included in a Criminal proceeding in Crime No.84/2014. Though charge
sheet is field in the said proceedings, the petitioner contends that he would come out clean in the said proceedings as he has not involved himself in
criminal activities. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said position, the name of the petitioner has been included in the Rowdy
Register which has caused great hardship and also embarrassment to the petitioner. In that view, the petitioner has made the representations as at
Annexures ''A'' and ''B'' seeking deletion of his name from the Rowdy Register. Since the same has not been considered, the petitioner is before
this Court.
The learned Government Advocate who has taken notice in the matter would point out that when the name of a person is included in the Rowdy
Register, the mere pendency of the criminal case alone would not be the basis but the conduct of the person keeping in view the Standing Order
No.1059 as contained in the Police Manual is also one of the aspects which is to be taken into consideration by the law enforcing authorities and in
order to monitor and regulate the activities of such person there would be a need to include the name of the person in the Rowdy Registry. In that
view he contends that the said aspect is also one which will have to be kept in view by the competent authorities.
Having taken note of the contentions as put forth, in my opinion this Court at this juncture is not required to arrive at a conclusion as to whether
the inclusion of the name of the petitioner is justified or not. The competent authority to whom the representation has been made will have to keep
in view the legal position and also the factual aspects pursuant to the period during which the name of the petitioner has subsisted in the Rowdy
Register. In that background, the competent authority on keeping view of all these aspects of the matter will have to take a decision in the matter as
to whether there is any justification to continue the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Register. Such consideration by the competent authority
would be possible if a direction to that effect is issued to the respondent No.2 to take note of the representation filed by the petitioner in the
background of the material available on record and take a decision in that regard.
To enable the same, the petitioner to submit one more copy of the representation as at Annexures ''A'' to respondent No.2. The respondent No.2
shall thereupon secure all details from the respondent No.4, peruse the same and thereupon take a decision in the matter keeping in view the
representation of the petitioner and the other documents relating to the same.
The decision in that regard shall in any event be taken as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date on which a copy is
submitted.
Petition is accordingly disposed of .