RAVI S. DHAVAN, J. The petitioner was denied a contract, a Government con tract by the department of police, Uttar Pradesh. The immediate cause of filing the petition was a communication from the Su perintendent of police, Rampur, dated 9 January, 1994, intimating the petitioner that a certain contract has been denied to him. The cause given is that the petitioner has been placed in the black list. 2. The petitioner explains the situation before the Court that he had at one stage being charged under Section 9 of the Opium Act, 1878 and convicted by the Excise Magistrate. This is the order of the Excise Magistrate-I, Rampur, dated 13 October, 1960. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Rampur. This was ap peal No. 164 of 1960 Shakhawat All Khan and others v. State. The appeal was decided by the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Rampur, dated 18 November, 1960. The ap pellants were acquitted. 3. In between the petitioner submits that he had been carrying out Government contracts. In the petition it is submitted that the petitioner had very intimate terms with an Honble Minister. It is not necessary to take the ministers name in this order. The petitioner submits that in the 1993 assembly elections he had sided with the party which was against the minister and, thus, the Honble Minister felt antagonised that the petitioner had changed loyalities in politics. Subsequently, the petitioner continues to submit in the petition, the Honble Minister returned to power. This time, the petitioner contends, vengeance was taken against him by the Honble Minister directly and indirectly to wield influence on the police department so as to cancel a building contract assigned to him. The petitioner was also black listed. 4. The petitioner also prays in this writ petition that the history sheet which has been opened and is referred to in the im pugned order, of the Superintendent of police, Rampur, be quashed. The history sheet is of b class category. Then, truly, this petition has not been filed against the order black listing the petitioner by which he has been disentitled to receive a contract from the police department, but for closing the file which shows him as a history sheeter in Class b category. 5. The Court is afraid that the reliefs which the petitioner seeks cannot be granted. 6. 5. The Court is afraid that the reliefs which the petitioner seeks cannot be granted. 6. Probably counsel for the petitioner is not aware of the fact that b Class category history sheet and the opening of it or the closing of it is referred to in Regula tion 232 of the U. P. Police Regulations framed under the police Act 1861. The chapter regarding history sheets, in context, is Chapter XX. In reference to B Class history sheets, the following has been prescribed. "232. History-sheet of B class will be con tinuously open records and the subjects of these sheets will, except for every special reasons remain under surveillance until death. This being so it is unnecessary to "star" suspects of this class. " 7. The High Court would not know on the antecedents of the petitioner and the history of his alleged actions which oc casioned opening of a history sheet b class against him. The High Court cannot close this file because the matter is not of any solitary incident, but of record which the petitioner avoids reference to. It is not that the petitioner is unaware of the incidents which occasioned the opening of a history sheet. 8. Before the Court a link has been attempted between the appellate order of the Sessions Judge and discharging the petitioner and the co-accused and acquit ting them. Between the order by which the petitioner was denied the contract by the police department and the appellate order acquitting him and the co-accused thirty four years have elapsed. The High Court also would not know the state of the record on what happened in between. 9. The petitioner forgets that he was in politics and the going was goad while it lasted. It did not last long as the petitioner switched loyalties. The petitioner virtually admits that political friendship got him the contract. Extraneous considerations work both ways. The bounce up and the re-bounce down are of the petitioners making. This is not a matter in which the High Court should interfere. 10. The writ petition is ill-advised and is, accordingly dismissed. 11. The interim order of 13 April 1994 is discharged. Petition dismissed. .