JUDGMENT : Prakash Padia, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Manju Thakur, learned AGA for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 5.7.2018 passed by the S.S.P., Saharanpur rejecting the petitioner's representation for closure of history-sheet No. 30-A opened against the petitioner at Police Station Kutubsher, District Saharanpur since 4.4.2006. 3. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner is a reputed man of his town and doing the business and running a daily newspaper in the name of "Dainik Badri Vishal". It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was falsely implicated in 9 cases disclosed in the history-sheet. It is further stated that it is apparent that a series of criminal cases relating to disputed properties for which civil suites were also filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction at District Saharanpur, were deliberately instituted against the petitioner and are product of malice. From perusal of the history-sheet, which is appended in the writ petition it is clear that on the basis of nine criminal cases relating to the offences-against property, history-sheet in question came into existence for the petitioner in the year 2006. The details of the aforesaid nine cases were mentioned in paragraph 9 of the writ petition. From perusal of the same, it is clear that in some of the cases either final report has been submitted or the proceedings were quashed by the Competent Authority. It is further stated in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that apart from the nine cases as mentioned in the history-sheet eight other cases were also registered against the petitioner with the reference and mention in paragraph 10 of the writ petition. It is further stated in the writ petition that in as many as four cases reference of which has been made by the petitioner in the petition, the petitioner has no connection. 4. It is further argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that after the year 2007, no criminal case whatsoever has been registered against him nor he has been involved in any case pertaining to any civil dispute or land dispute or anything else but no orders were passed by the authorities for closure of the history-sheet in question. 4. It is further argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that after the year 2007, no criminal case whatsoever has been registered against him nor he has been involved in any case pertaining to any civil dispute or land dispute or anything else but no orders were passed by the authorities for closure of the history-sheet in question. In this reasons a comprehensive representation was made by the petitioner before the State Government on 23.8.2016, copy of which is appended as Annexure 20 to the writ petition. Since no action was taken on the same, the petitioner earlier preferred a writ petition before this Court being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15785 of 2017 (Satpal Singh Chhabra v. State of U.P. and 3 others). The aforesaid writ petition was finally decided by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 20.4.2018 directing the petitioner to prefer a representation before the concerned S.S.P./S.P. along with a self attested copy of the writ petition within two weeks. The authority concerned was directed to decide the same and pass appropriate orders within two months. The order passed on 20.4.2018 is reproduced here-in below: "Heard Ms. Swetashwa Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashish Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record. The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the history sheet No. 30-A dated 4.4.2006, command the respondent concerned not to give effect to history sheet No. 30-A dated 4.4.2006 in Police Station Kutubsher, Saharanpur. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he made a representation before the S.S.P., Saharanpur, as it appears from the representation dated 23.8.2016 and copy of the same has been annexed on page No. 134. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also learned A.G.A. It would appear from the record that the police has opened history sheet of the petitioner on the basis of nine cases registered against him mentioned in para No. 6 in which in some of them, the petitioner has been acquitted. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the history sheet of Class A can be opened when it has been established on the basis of suspicion or conviction that a suspect is an active and prominent member of a gang of dacoits. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the history sheet of Class A can be opened when it has been established on the basis of suspicion or conviction that a suspect is an active and prominent member of a gang of dacoits. It is further argued that mere suspects should not be starred until established that one has become dangerous and confirmed criminal and is unlikely to reform. The next contention is that the case of the petitioner No. 1 is not covered by paragraph 228 of the UP. Police Regulations. Per contra, learned A.G.A. drew attention of the Court to the decision in Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 84, and suggested that the matter should be relegated to authority concerned for deciding whether the history-sheet of petitioner should be closed or should be continued. We are also of the view that the interest of justice would be best served if the matter is relegated to the Police Authority to take appropriate decision in the matter. In view of the above, it is directed that in case the petitioner prefers a representation before the concerned S.S.P./S.P. along with a self attested copy of the writ petition within two weeks from today, the authority concerned shall consider it according to law and pass appropriate order within two months. The petition stands disposed of." 5. Pursuant to the same a detailed representation was submitted by the petitioner before the respondent No. 1. The aforesaid representation was rejected by the respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 5.7.2018, copy of which is appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 6. It is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the history-sheet can only be opened against the person, who is habitual offender or addicted to commit crimes specified under the Police Regulation and in the present case History-sheet was opened against the petitioner although there was no material before the Authority for such belief. It is further argued that history-sheet of Class-A as in the present case can be opened when it has been established by suspicion or conviction that a suspect is an active and prominent member of a gang of dacoits and mere suspects can not be starred until established that one has become dangerous and confirmed criminal and is unlikely to reform. 7. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Regulation 228 of U.P. Police Regulation. It is further argued that since 2007, there is no criminal case lodged against the petitioner and he was not found involved in any criminal activities under Chapter XX Rule 231 of U.P. Police Regulations, the history-sheet ought to have been closed after two consecutive years but only in order to harass the petitioner the authorities are not closing the history-sheet of the petitioner and are harassing the petitioner in the name of surveillance. It is further argued that the history-sheet of the petitioner is a Class-A and not starred. The relevant provisions regarding maintenance of history-sheet of Class-A is contained in Chapter XX Rule 231 of the U.P. Police Regulations, which is reproduced here in below: "(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 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 any "unstarring' ex-convicts and especially ex-convicts dacoits great care should be exercised." 8. In this view of the matter, it is argued that the history-sheet of a Class-A could only be permitted to continue for two conclusive years subject to his not having been in jail for any part of the said two years. In closing the history sheets of any "unstarring' ex-convicts and especially ex-convicts dacoits great care should be exercised." 8. In this view of the matter, it is argued that the history-sheet of a Class-A could only be permitted to continue for two conclusive years subject to his not having been in jail for any part of the said two years. The history-sheet beyond two years cannot continue except by a special order or unless found to have been convicted in any cognizable offence and in jail or suspected for any offence or absented in suspicious circumstances during said two consecutive years. It is argued that the petitioner does not fall into any of the parameters mentioned in paragraph 231 of the Police Regulations as such history-sheet needs to be closed in the interest of justice. It is further argued that though all this grounds were duly taken by the petitioner while filing the representation pursuant to the orders passed by this Court but none of them was taken into consideration by the respondent No. 2 while rejecting the same. 9. The writ petition has been contested on behalf of the State by filing counter-affidavit. 10. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. It is not disputed that the history sheet of the petitioner was of Class-A and was not "starred". The relevant provision regarding maintenance of history sheet of Class-A is contained in Chapter XX Rule 231 of the U.P. Police Regulations which is reproduced above. 12. From the above, it is apparent that surveillance in respect of a person whose history-sheet of Class-A has been opened, is to be continued for two consecutive years subject to his not having been in jail for any part of said two years. It is also clear from above that history sheet beyond two years cannot continue except by a special order or unless he has been found to have been convicted in any cognizable offence and has been in jail or was suspected for any offence or absented himself in suspicious circumstances during said two consecutive years. 13. It is also clear from above that history sheet beyond two years cannot continue except by a special order or unless he has been found to have been convicted in any cognizable offence and has been in jail or was suspected for any offence or absented himself in suspicious circumstances during said two consecutive years. 13. In this way, history sheet could be continued for two years beyond 2006 and thereafter since no case was registered against the petitioner in the next two consecutive years and he had never been in jail or convicted of any cognizable offence during two years after 2006, the history-sheet could not be continued beyond that period unless Superintendent decided so, for special reasons to be recorded in the inspection book of the police station. 14. The intention of the Regulation 231 is not that history sheet should remain open against anyone for all time to come. Once the person maintains good conduct and he is not convicted in any cognizable offence or has been in jail during that period and also he was not suspected of any offence or absented himself in suspicious circumstances for the said two consecutive years, his surveillance is to be discontinued except under orders of Superintendent on the basis of reason recorded at police station during inspection. No such eventuality has happened or occurred in the case of the petitioner during the said two consecutive years, therefore, history sheet ought to have been closed. Continuance of history-sheet beyond the period as indicated above is wrong and, therefore, petitioner deserves to the relief prayed for. 15. Although all these facts were duly mentioned by the petitioner while making the representation pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 20.4.2018 but none of them was taken into consideration in legal manner whatsoever by the respondent No. 2 while rejecting the same vide its order dated 5.7.2020, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 16. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that the order dated 5.7.2018 passed by the respondent No. 2/S.S.P., Saharanpur, copy of which is appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed. 17. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 18. 16. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that the order dated 5.7.2018 passed by the respondent No. 2/S.S.P., Saharanpur, copy of which is appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed. 17. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 18. A writ of mandamus is accordingly issued directing the Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur/respondent No. 2 to discontinue history sheet No. 30-A of the petitioner at P.S. Kutubsher, District Saharanpur. 19. No order as to costs.