By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners- Bhupendra Tiwari alias Guddu and Harikesh Tiwari alias Chhotey, have challenged history sheet Nos. 67-A and 69-A of 1997 opened against them at-police station Sarai Inayat. district Allahabad, mainly on the ground that there is no order of the Senior Super intendent of Police to the effect that surveillance of the history sheet opened against them on 27-5-1997 should con tinue. 2. We have heard Mr. Daya Shanker Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A. G. A. 3. Mr. Dinesh Tripathi, Station Of ficer, RS. Beckanganj, district Kanpur has filed his counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, there is no averment lo the effect that after opening the history sheet on 27- 5-1997, the same is being con tinued under any orders of the Senior Su perintendent of Police, Allahabad or any other higher officer of Police. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention has relied on the decisions reported in 1999 (38) Allahabad Criminal Cases-200 (Rajesh Kumar and another. Slate of U. P. and others), 1994 JIC Page 229 (Gurubux Singh Bakshi v. State of U. P and AIR 1963 SCI 295 (Kharak Singh v. Slate of U. P. and others ). 5. For the purposes of the present case, Regulations 231, 236 and 237 of the U. P. Police Regulation appears to be relevant, which read as under: "231. The subject of history sheets of class A will- unless they are "starred" remain under surveillance for at least two consecutive year of which they have spent no part in jail. When the subject of a-history sheet of class A whose name has not been "starred1 who has never been con victed of cognizable offence and has not been in jail or suspected of any offence or absented himself in suspicious circumstances for two con secutive years, his surveillance will be discon tinued unless for special reasons to be recorded in the inspection book of the police station the Superintendent decides that it should continue. When the subject of a history sheet of class A is "starred" he will remain starred for at least two consecutive years during which he has not been in Jail or been suspected of a cog nizable offence or had any suspicious absence recorded against him. When the subject of a history sheet of class A is "starred" he will remain starred for at least two consecutive years during which he has not been in Jail or been suspected of a cog nizable offence or had any suspicious absence recorded against him. At the end of that period if he is believed to have reformed he will cease to be "starred" but will remain subject to surveil lance will be discontinued only if during that period no complaints have been recorded against him. In closing the history sheets of an "un-starred" ex-convict and especially cx-convict dacoits great case should be exercised. 236. Without prejudice to the right of Su perintendent of Police to put into practice an illegal measures such as shadowing in cities by which they find they can keep in touch with suspects in particular local ties or special cir cumstances surveillance may for most practical purposes be defined as consisting of one or more of the following measures: (a) secret picketing of the house or ap proaches to the houses of suspects; (b) through periodical inquiries by officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector into repute, habits, association. income, expenses and occupation; (c) the reporting by constables and chaukidars of movements and absences from home; (d) the verification of movements and ab sences by means of inquiry slip; (e) the collection and record on a history sheet of all information bearing on conduct. 237. All history sheet mean or class A "starred" and "unstarred" will be subject to all these measures of surveillance. Will be for the Station Officer subject to the control, of the Superintendent and Circle- Inspector to regu late the intensity with which they are applied in each" particular case (sic) to the believed tem porary activity of the suspect/ Thus (he move ment and absences of all men of class A must be reported at the police station but they need not be verified by means of inquiry slip when they do not appear to be suspicious similarly while a thorough local inquiry into general depute, habits, associations, income, expenses and oc cupation in the case of men, whether "starred" or "unstarred" who are believed to be quiescent need be made only once a year by the station officer or by a subordinate Sub- Inspector under his direction. Such inquiries should be made half yearly or with even greater frequency in the case of men, whether "starred" or "unstarred" who are believed to be temporarily active. " 6. In Kharak Singh case (supra), the Supreme Court has held that domiciliary visits under paragraph 236 (b) of the U. R Police Regulations affect personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Con stitution and has declared paragraph 236 (b) of the U. P. Police Regulations as unconstitutional. 7. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the right to privacy is a part of the right to "life and personal liberty" enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitu tion. Once the facts in a given case con stitute a right to privacy, Article 21 is at tracted. The said right cannot he curtailed "except according to the procedure estab lished by law". 8. From a perusal of Regulation 231 quoted above it is clear that history sheet of class A shall continue for two consecu tive years and thereafter surveillance will be discontinued unless some special. reasons are recorded by Superintendent of Police. 9. In the present case, the respon dents have not shown any special reasons for continuing history sheet which was Opened in 1997 nor they have filed any. document or affidavit that after opening the history sheet in 1997, there was any order for extending the period of history sheet of the petitioner beyond the period of two years. 10. Thus, in our opinion, the petitioners are entitled to-the relief claimed for. 11. For the reasons men tioned above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to close down the history sheet against the petitioners and to discontinue surveil- lance and domiciliary visits. Petition allowed. .