JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri B.K. Singh for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. The petition has been filed seeking the following main reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 04.05.2018 passed by opposite party contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent to close the history sheet No. 17A of P.S. Korwali Utraula, District Balrampur forthwith." 2. Facts of the case are mat due to an incident of dashing of vehicle, some quarrel took place between the petitioner and the complainant, as a result of which, a criminal case, viz. Case Crime No. 378, of 2009 under Sections 394, 411 and 308 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Utraula, District Balrampur was registered. On the basis of aforesaid criminal case, under the order of Superintendent of Police dated 03.08.2009, history sheet No. 17A was opened against the petitioner, as provided in Chapter XX of U.P. Police Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations’). 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and due to an incident of dashing of vehicle, aforesaid case was registered. It is further submitted that trial of the aforesaid case was conducted and the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment and order dated 28.07.2015, but merely on the basis of aforesaid criminal case, the history sheet is being kept open. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that under the Right to Information Act, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner vide information dated 18th February, 2016 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) from the Public Information Officer of P.S. Kotwali Utraula, District Balrampur that another case, i.e. Case Crime No. 1046 of 2015 under Section 110(G) Cr.P.C. was also registered against him, which is pending in the court of S.D.M. Utraula. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that due to the history sheet, character certificate as well as passport of the petitioner were not being issued by the competent authorities, therefore, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9621 (M/B) No. 2016 with the prayer of quashing of the history sheet. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that due to the history sheet, character certificate as well as passport of the petitioner were not being issued by the competent authorities, therefore, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9621 (M/B) No. 2016 with the prayer of quashing of the history sheet. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 04.05.2016, which reads as under: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. By means of the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made following prayer:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the History Sheet No. 17A dated 3.8.2009 opened against the petitioner in Police Station - Kotwali Utraula, District Balrampur." Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has not moved any such representation before the competent authority. A copy of the annexure filed by him shows that such representation has been moved before the S.P. concerned, who is not competent authority for the said purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he shall move a representation before the competent authority i.e. District Magistrate concerned. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the direction that if the petitioner moves a representation before the District Magistrate concerned within a period of one month from today along with certified copy of this order then the competent authority shall dispose of the same in accordance with law within three months from the date a certified copy of this order as well as copy of the representation is received." 5. In terms of the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a representation before the competent authority and prayed for setting aside the history sheet and also stopping of the surveillance. The Superintendent of Police, Balrampur sought opinion from the Joint Director (Prosecution), who in his report dated 26.04.2018, apprised the Superintendent of Police that under the provisions of Regulations 231 and 234 of the Regulations, the history sheet of the petitioner can be closed at the discretion of the Superintendent of Police. 6. On the representation of the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur also sought report from the Station House Officer, P.S. Utraula, District Balrampur. 6. On the representation of the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur also sought report from the Station House Officer, P.S. Utraula, District Balrampur. In the report, S.H.O. categorically mentioned that it is not appropriate to declare the petitioner as a criminal of category (A) as mentioned in Regulation 228 of the Regulations and also recommended for closure of the history sheet. But, without considering the recommendation of the S.H.O. P.S. Utraula, District Balrampur, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur vide order dated 04.05.2018 in a most mechanical manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully submitted that no satisfactory reason was recorded by the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur for opening the history sheet of the petitioner. Hence, the present petition. 7. Vide order dated 14.05.2018, time was granted to the learned A.G.A. for filing counter-affidavit, in pursuance to which, counter-affidavit by Circle Officer (City), District Balrampur dated 23.07.2018 has been filed. 8. In paragraphs 3, 9 and 19 of the counter-affidavit, it is mentioned that the history sheet cannot be discontinued during the lifetime of the petitioner and under the provisions of Regulation 240, even on suspicion, the history sheet may be opened without the order of Superintendent of Police, therefore, there is no illegality in keeping the history sheet open, irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in the Case Crime No. 378 of 2009. 9. Learned A.G.A. stated that on the basis of material evidence, the history sheet was opened against the petitioner under the provisions of Chapter XX of U.P. Police Regulations and he is under surveillance. He further submitted that in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaman Lal vs. State of U.P. 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 84, no interference is required by the this Court. As the impugned order is self explanatory, hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in the writ jurisdiction. 10. After going through the contents of the pleadings and hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the police authorities are empowered to open a history sheet for making a special attention to habitual criminals as defined in Regulation 228 of the Regulations. 11. 10. After going through the contents of the pleadings and hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the police authorities are empowered to open a history sheet for making a special attention to habitual criminals as defined in Regulation 228 of the Regulations. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kharak Singh vs. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 1295 , Gobind vs. State of M.P. AIR 1975 SC 1378 and Mahak Singh vs. State of Punjab and Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 760 , contended that the fundamental rights of the petitioner are being violated by maintenance of history sheet and continuance of surveillance, without any basis. He also contended that the principles of natural justice have been violated and the history sheet is being continued contrary to the provisions of the Regulations. 12. The principle is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the "Reason" is the heart beat of every conclusion. In the present case, no reason has been given by the Superintendent of Police for opening the history sheet and despite the recommendation of the S.H.O. P.S. Kotwali Utraula for closure of the history sheet, the representation of the petitioner for closing of the history sheet has been rejected vide order dated 04.05.2018. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that from the perusal of the Register No. 8, it transpires that the officers concerned made remarks in the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 that the surveillance of the criminal/petitioner is necessary, however, without giving any concrete material. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that one case registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 110(G) Cr.P.C. is pending before the S.D.M. Utraula. 13. It is to be noticed here that in the counter-affidavit, there is no detail about the pendency of the aforesaid case against the petitioner. 14. The authorities have presumed that the petitioner is habitual offender and security of good behavior is needed, however, without placing any evidence to that effect, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopalanachari vs. State of Kerala, 1980 Supp. 14. The authorities have presumed that the petitioner is habitual offender and security of good behavior is needed, however, without placing any evidence to that effect, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopalanachari vs. State of Kerala, 1980 Supp. SCC 649 : AIR 1981 SC 674 , wherein it has been observed that in view of Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, no men shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty, except according to the procedure established by law by a subjective satisfaction. Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the said judgment read as under: "4. If men can be whisked away by the police and imprisoned for long months and the court can keep the cases pending without thought to the fact that an old man is lying in cellular confinement without hope of his case being disposed of, Article 21, read with Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, remain symbolic and scriptural rather than a shield against unjust deprivation. Law is not a mascot but a defender of the faith. Surely, if law behaves lawlessly, social justice becomes a judicial hoax. 6. Article 21 insists that no man shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. In Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597 this Court in clearest terms strengthened the rule of law vis-a-vis personal liberty by insisting on the procedure contemplated by Article 21 having to be fair and reasonable, not vagarious, vague and arbitrary: "The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14. It must be "right and just and fair" and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied [Ibid. pp. 284 & 285 (Per Bhagwati, J.)]... The principles and procedures are to be applied which, in any particular situation or set of circumstances, are right and just and fair. Natural justice, it has been said, is only "fair play in action." 15. pp. 284 & 285 (Per Bhagwati, J.)]... The principles and procedures are to be applied which, in any particular situation or set of circumstances, are right and just and fair. Natural justice, it has been said, is only "fair play in action." 15. It is also necessary here to consider the contents of Regulations 228, 229, 230, 231, 233, 234 and 240 of the Regulations, which read as under: "228. Part V consists of history sheets. These are the personal records of criminals under surveillance. History sheets should be opened only for persons who are or likely to become habitual criminal or abettors of such criminals. There will be two classes of history-sheets: (1) Class A history sheets for dacoits, burglars, cattle-thieves, railway-goods wagon thieves, and abettors thereof. (2) Class B history sheets for confirmed and professional criminals who commit crimes other than dacoity, burglary, cattle-theft and theft from railway goods wagons, e.g. professional cheats and other experts for whom criminal personal files are maintained by the Criminal Investigation Department, poisoners, cattle poisoners, railway passenger thieves, bicycle thieves, expert pick-pockets, forgers, coiners, cocaine and opium smugglers, hired ruffians and goondas, telegraph wire-cutters, habitual illicit distillers and abettors thereof. History sheets of both classes will be maintained in similar form, but those for class B will be distinguished by a red bar marked at the top of the first page. No history sheet of class B may be converted into a history sheet of class A, though should be the subject of a history sheet of class B be found to be also addicted to dacoity, burglary, cattle-theft or theft from railway goods wagons. A class, as well as B class, surveillance may under paragraph 238 be applied to him. In the event of a class A history sheet man becoming addicted to miscellaneous crime his history sheet may be converted into a class B history sheet with the sanction of the Superintendent. 229. This classification of history sheets as A and B is based on the principle that, whereas there is always hope of a dacoit, burglar, or cattle thief or railway goods wagons thief mending his ways, the expert miscellaneous criminal is as a general rule incapable of reform. 229. This classification of history sheets as A and B is based on the principle that, whereas there is always hope of a dacoit, burglar, or cattle thief or railway goods wagons thief mending his ways, the expert miscellaneous criminal is as a general rule incapable of reform. The classification, therefore, solely on the kind of crime to which suspects are addicted and is designed to regulate only:- (1) the length of time for which a suspect should ordinarily remain, under surveillance in the absence of complaints against him. (2) the kind of surveillance which his activities require. The degree of surveillance of the appropriate kind to be exercised over a suspect will depend not on his classification, but on the extent to which he is believed to be active at any particular time. 230. If the subject of an A class history-sheet is thought to be so dangerous or incorrigible as to require more protracted surveillance than the generality of his class, he may be "started" by the order of the Superintendent. Here, again, the fact that a history sheet man is started will necessarily indicate only that he is to be kept under continuous surveillance for a longer period. It will not necessarily indicate that his surveillance while it lasts is to be more intense. The aim is to concentrate the most intense surveillance on the criminal, whether starred or un-starred, who is believed to be temporarily active. Superintendent of district police may not give orders for the starring of or discontinuance of surveillance over any history sheeter of a railway police suspect without the concurrence of the Superintendent of Government Railway Police. 231. The subjects 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 "starred" who has never been convicted of cognizable offence and has not been in jail or suspected of any offence or absented himself in suspicious circumstances for two consecutive years his surveillance will be discontinued, 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 cognizable 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 surveillance will be discontinued only if during that period no complaints have been recorded against him. In closing the history sheets of an "un-starring" ex-convicts and especially ex-convict dacoits great care should be exercised. 233. The discontinuance of surveillance of the subject of a history sheet does not entail closing that history sheet. A history-sheet which is only a record of information need never be considered closed. In the case of persons whose surveillance is discontinued a note should be made to this effect in the history sheet, and thereafter no periodical or other entries need be made unless something comes to notice which it is desirable to enter in the sheet. Sheets persons whose surveillance has been discontinued should remain in these village crime-note book but if the number is as much as to make the volume too bulky, they should be kept in a separate volume attached to the note-book. They will only be destroyed on the death of the subject of the sheet, or if, on opinion of the Superintendent their further retention is not likely to be of any value. 234. No history sheet of class A may be discontinued without the sanction of the Superintendent of Police. If it is denied to discontinue the surveillance of the subject of a history sheet of class B, the sanction of the Deputy Inspector-General or Superintendent, Railway Police, must be obtained. Proposals from station officers for the discontinuance of history sheets and for the "starring or un-starring" of a class suspects must be made through the circle inspector unless dealt with directly by a gazetted officer in the course of an inspection. 240. History sheets of both classes may be opened (1) on suspicion or (2) on conviction or acquittal. No history sheet may be opened without the orders of the Superintendent of Police. 240. History sheets of both classes may be opened (1) on suspicion or (2) on conviction or acquittal. No history sheet may be opened without the orders of the Superintendent of Police. (1) On suspicion - Whenever as a result of investigation into a case of dacoity, burglary, cattle theft from railway goods wagons or into a case of miscellaneous crime of a professional type, the officer-in-charge of a police station applies for the name of any person to be entered in the crime register as reasonably suspected, he must at the same time report whether the suspect is under surveillance, and if not, whether a history sheet should in his opinion be opened for him. Should the gazetted officer-in-charge of a subdivision on receiving such a report and after such further inquiry as he may think necessary consider that a history sheet is required he will forward the report to the Superintendent who if he accepts the proposal will define the class of history sheet to be opened and pass orders as to whether the suspect should be starred. Similarly whenever an officer-in-charge of a police station finds reason to believe, otherwise than in the course of an investigation, that any resident of his circle is addicted to crime, or whenever a gazetted officer or circle inspector for any reason believes that a history-sheet for any person is necessary a report must be submitted to the Superintendent, who will pass orders on it as laid down above. (2) On conviction or acquittal - Whenever any person is sent for trial on a charge of dacoity, burglary, cattle theft or theft from a railway goods wagons or of miscellaneous crime of a professional type, the officer-in-charge of the police station must state in his diary whether the accused has a history sheet and if not, whether he recommends that a history-sheet, should be opened for him. It will be the 'duty of the public prosecutor, if the accused is acquitted to inform the Superintendent, in his report on the acquittal or otherwise, whether in his opinion a history sheet is required. On this the Superintendent will pass any orders to the station officer that may be necessary. It will be the 'duty of the public prosecutor, if the accused is acquitted to inform the Superintendent, in his report on the acquittal or otherwise, whether in his opinion a history sheet is required. On this the Superintendent will pass any orders to the station officer that may be necessary. If the accused is convicted, the public prosecutor must, in the remarks column of the daily report of convictions and acquittals (Form No. 107) enter in red ink the words on H.S. if a history sheet is already open, or the letters H.S. if he recommends that one should be prepared. In either case he must prepare and attach to the daily report of convictions and acquittals a P.R. slip (Form No. 313). If a history sheet is already open or if the Superintendent agrees that a history sheet should be opened he will sign this P.R. slip and initial the letters H.S. or On H.S. on the daily report of convictions and acquittals. The public prosecutor will then communicate the Superintendent's orders for the opening of a history sheet to the police station concerned and will forward the P.R. slip to the Superintendent of Jail. If no history sheet is opened and if the Superintendent does not agree that one should be prepared, he will not sign the P.R. slip, which will be cancelled. If the accused is a resident of another district or State or has been sent for trial by the railway police, the same procedure will be followed except that the Superintendent of Police will not order a history sheet to be opened. If the accused is convicted and the Superintendent considers a history sheet to be desirable the P.R. slip will be signed and sent to the Superintendent of the Jail and the Superintendent of Jail shall furnish the Superintendent of Police with a receipt for the PR. slip. If the accused is convicted and the Superintendent considers a history sheet to be desirable the P.R. slip will be signed and sent to the Superintendent of the Jail and the Superintendent of Jail shall furnish the Superintendent of Police with a receipt for the PR. slip. In column 10 Form No. 148 (conviction roll) the public prosecutor will note in red ink that this has been done and in column 15 of the same form a note will be made recommending that a history sheet should be opened: Any conviction roll on which a recommendation for the opening of history-sheet has been made must on receipt in the district of the convicts residence be put up before the Superintendent of Police of that district who will decide whether a history sheet should be opened or not, and will address the Superintendent of Jail regarding the cancellation of the P.R. slip if he does not agree that a history sheet is necessary. Notwithstanding anything in the above, the Superintendent of Police of any district in Uttar Pradesh shall subject to the final decision of the Deputy Inspector-General of the Range, to whom any question of disagreement must be referred, be bound to open a history-sheet at the request of the Superintendent of Government Railway Police for any person resident who is suspected or convicted of crime on the railway. The Superintendent, Railway Police, should specify the kind of surveillance required in each case. In the case of persons, sent for trial by the Railway police, in which the Superintendent considers a history sheet desirable, the public prosecutor will send Form No. 143 (conviction roll) endorsed, as directed above, to the Superintendent of the man's district, through the Superintendent, Railway Police. The Superintendent, Railway Police, in forwarding Form No. 148 to the Superintendent of the district concerned will state whether he considers a history sheet necessary. If not, he will request the Superintendent of the Jail to cancel the P.R. slip." 16. Regulation 228 clearly provides that history sheet of a criminal should be opened only for such persons, who are or likely to become habitual criminals or abettors of such criminals and there are two categories of the history sheets. 17. If not, he will request the Superintendent of the Jail to cancel the P.R. slip." 16. Regulation 228 clearly provides that history sheet of a criminal should be opened only for such persons, who are or likely to become habitual criminals or abettors of such criminals and there are two categories of the history sheets. 17. In the present case, the petitioner is deemed as a criminal, but there is no substance to prove him either abettors of such crimes or a habitual criminal, or likely to become a habitual criminal. 18. As it is evident from Regulation 231 that the subjects of history sheet of Class A will be remained under surveillance, unless they are "starred" for at least two consecutive years of which they have spent no part in jail. When the subject of history sheet of Class A, whose name has not been starred, who has never been convicted of a cognizable offence and has not been in jail or suspected of any offence or absented himself in suspicious circumstances for two consecutive years, his surveillance will be continued, unless for special reasons to be recorded in the inspection book of the police station: Regulation 233 reveals that the surveillance may be closed under the order of Superintendent of Police. Regulation 234 clearly provides that no history sheet of Class A may be discontinued without the sanction of Superintendent of Police. Regulation 240 specifically provides that history sheets of both the Classes may be opened under the order of Superintendent of Police. 19. On the basis of above facts and discussions, it is clear from Regulation 234 that the Superintendent of Police is empowered to consider the continuance of the history sheet, on the basis of subjective satisfaction, in the light of the provisions mentioned in Chapter XX of the Regulations. 20. Contention of learned A.G.A. has no force that in the case of history sheet, no interference is required in view of the law laid down in Chaman Lal's case (supra), as in the said case, though history sheet was challenged, but the writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanding the matter to the Superintendent of Police for fresh consideration for closure of the history sheet. 21. 21. In the present case, the petitioner was prosecuted in a criminal case, i.e. Case Crime No. 379 of 2009 (supra) in which the allegations were that the complainant was going on his motorcycle, but his vehicle was dashed by the jeep of the petitioner. When the complainant came to the house of petitioner making complaint, then he was assaulted and victimized with the help of others. However, the petitioner was acquitted in the aforesaid case. The other case lodged against the petitioner was initiated by the authorities to give security for good behavior treating him a habitual offender. 22. It has been argued by the petitioner that non-closure of history sheet is jeopardising the life and liberty of the petitioner. He is being visited by the civil consequences of the police surveillance. He has submitted that his application for passport is not being processed by the passport officer. He is being denied the Character Certificate by the Administrative authorities adversely affecting his right to live with dignity. The argument carries weight. 23. The impugned order is passed on the basis of opinion of Senior Prosecuting Officer, Utraula ignoring the detail report of the S.H.O. P.S. Utraula, District Balrampur. There is no indication either in the impugned order or in the counter affidavit that any offence having been abetted by the petitioner in association with anti-social elements. In such circumstances, the impugned order suffers from perversity and non-objectivity. The impugned order dated 04.05.2018, therefore, cannot be sustained for the reasons aforesaid. 24. On the basis of abovementioned facts and circumstances, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 25. The impugned order dated 04.05.2018 is hereby set aside. The opposite parties are directed to close the history sheet No. 17A of P.S. Kotwali Utraula, District Balrampur of the petitioner and not to keep surveillance on the petitioner in pursuance of the said history sheet.