JUDGMENT : Kshitij Shailendra, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-I along with Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A-1 for the State and perused the record. THE WRIT PETITION 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing History Sheet No.21-B opened against the petitioner at Police Station Shahganj, District Allahabad with a further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to keep surveillance on the petitioner in pursuance of the said history sheet. CONCEPT OF AND PHILOSOPHY BEHIND HISTORY SHEET 3. When the term "history-sheeter" is mentioned, it conjures an image of a seasoned criminal with an extensive record. The question arises: who exactly are these history-sheeters, and how does the police categorize someone as such? What disadvantages does a criminal face after being labeled a history-sheeter, and what consequences does it entail? These queries find answers in the following exploration. 4. In essence, a history sheeter is a designation employed by the police to identify individuals with a significant criminal history. This label is affixed to those who have been implicated in numerous offenses, with the details of their criminal activities duly recorded by the police. Before initiating the history sheet for any offender, the police verify the individual's current criminal status. 5. The process begins when an individual, already proven guilty in multiple cases and/or consistently engaging in criminal activities, attracts the attention of the police station's SHO. A report is subsequently sent to the SSP or SP, and upon receiving the necessary orders, the history sheet is opened. This comprehensive document contains detailed information about the criminal, including a criminal profile, associates, and known relatives. In certain scenarios, where individuals hesitate to report crimes related to organized rackets or extortion, the police, relying on local sources, maintain surveillance on such potential threats to society. The opening of history sheets is guided by calls, daily entries in the police control room, and the ongoing assessment of those posing a danger to society. 6. The presence of a history sheet serves as a deterrent, as it subjects the criminals to constant police scrutiny. Once a history sheet is opened, the criminals are required to regularly register their presence at the police station; failure to comply prompts the police authorities to visit their residences. 6. The presence of a history sheet serves as a deterrent, as it subjects the criminals to constant police scrutiny. Once a history sheet is opened, the criminals are required to regularly register their presence at the police station; failure to comply prompts the police authorities to visit their residences. Furthermore, a history sheet aids in tracing the source of income for criminals, enabling authorities to determine whether they have transitioned to legitimate means of earning. This scrutiny helps identify instances where an individual, previously engaged in illegal activities, displays signs of leading a luxurious lifestyle despite being unemployed. 7. The process of opening "History Sheet" is governed by the Police Rules of the concerned State or the Act governing habitual offenders. 8. Criminals often attempt to evade capture by frequently changing addresses. To counter this, the police communicate with other districts or States, sharing information about potential areas of relocation and requesting vigilant monitoring. Employing various strategies like crime mapping and identifying hot spots, law enforcement aims to curb criminal activities and maintain public safety. 9. History sheets are analogous to our criminal intelligence databases, but are more subject to legal constraints. At the same time, they are more vulnerable to public disclosure because they call for intensive and frequently conspicuous monitoring both by police and civilian leaders. 10. Since the days of the British regime, Indian police departments have created history sheets for persons believed to pose a risk of future criminality. The “history-sheeters” may have been convicted, or have criminal charges pending. History sheeters are subject to monitoring and surveillance. In India, the system of maintaining criminal record varies from State to State. All States require automatic creation of a history sheet for persons with certain criminal records. For example, Tamil Nadu requires creation of a history sheet for a person convicted once of a serious violent crime, twice for house breaking, three times for theft and certain other offenses. The police generally also have discretion to create a history sheet on an individual who has not been convicted, but whom police consider “addicted to crime” or a threat to public order. The police must have an articulable reason for creating a history sheet and they must notify the record-subject that a history sheet has been opened. 11. The police generally also have discretion to create a history sheet on an individual who has not been convicted, but whom police consider “addicted to crime” or a threat to public order. The police must have an articulable reason for creating a history sheet and they must notify the record-subject that a history sheet has been opened. 11. The police, with the assistance of the village officials are obliged to surveil and record information about the activities and movements of history-sheeters who reside in their jurisdiction. There are court restrictions and police best practise guidelines, varying from State to State, on the level of permissible monitoring and surveillance. There are many factors regulating when a history sheet can be opened, how long it can be kept and the intensity of surveillance that it authorizes. Courts have held that surveillance of history-sheeters must not be excessive. For example, some State courts and some police agencies have issued guidelines stating that first-time history-sheeters should be especially closely watched; surveillance should be discrete; domiciliary visits are not permitted; family members must not be harassed; police officers should make periodic and routine inquiries about the history-sheeter’s habits, associations, income, expenses and occupation; the police officers shall record history-sheeter’s movements and absences from his domiciliary home or area where he lives, and the like guidelines. 12. The history sheet has been subject to constitutional challenge on privacy grounds. The Supreme Court has recognized that police surveillance based upon a history sheet implicates a limited right to privacy implicit in the Constitutional right to life and personal liberty. According to the Court, every individual’s autonomy should be respected; there is a right to be left alone. However, the right to privacy is not absolute and the creation of a history sheet and surveillance of the history-sheeter is not unconstitutional if carried out in compliance with legal standards or, in the absence of standards, if conducted reasonably. In one case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court struck down home visits as infringing on the right to personal liberty and freedom of movement. 13. Police is supposed to update the file periodically with both favorable and unfavorable information gathered via routine police patrols and enquiries. Such information should be recorded impartially, not with an eye toward compiling a negative case against the record-subject. The history sheet, including a photo of the historysheeter, is a confidential record. 13. Police is supposed to update the file periodically with both favorable and unfavorable information gathered via routine police patrols and enquiries. Such information should be recorded impartially, not with an eye toward compiling a negative case against the record-subject. The history sheet, including a photo of the historysheeter, is a confidential record. The police is not authorized to disclose to public or private employers whether a job applicant or employee is a history-sheeter, much less what information the history sheet contains. However, the surveillance/crime control purpose of the history sheet requires that police officers have easy access to the history sheet. Local police can only monitor and surveil record-subjects if they know who they are. The history sheet is supposed to be shared with the Railway Police. If the history-sheeter moves to another jurisdiction, the history sheet is transferred to the new jurisdiction’s police department. Moreover, for proper reasons, the police may show the public a history-sheeter’s photos, when necessary, to capture a fugitive or solve a crime. 14. In sum, Indian law and policy recognize that police records, though necessary for crime control, implicate privacy and individual autonomy. The courts have struggled to regulate the history sheet system by providing court review for individuals objecting to their history sheet designation and by limiting police discretion to open, maintain and conduct surveillance. 15. When above is the situation and philosophy behind opening of history sheets and to keep the history sheeters on surveillance depending on the circumstances, can it be said that opening of history sheet or continuing with the surveillance is stigmatic in so far as the individual is concerned and whether permanent closure of history sheet or its quashing by a court of law would at all be justified? The answer would be – No. The reason is that the police needs a mechanism to control the crime, both individual and organized. Surveillance of suspects, habitual and potential offenders, may be necessary and so the maintenance of history sheet and surveillance register for the purpose of prevention of crime. Permissible surveillance is only to the extent of a close watch over the movements of the person under surveillance and no more. Further, transfer of police officials from one place to other on frequent basis is a normal phenomenon in India. Permissible surveillance is only to the extent of a close watch over the movements of the person under surveillance and no more. Further, transfer of police officials from one place to other on frequent basis is a normal phenomenon in India. During their short tenure at a particular place of posting, concerned police officers may have some inputs about a criminal but after they leave that particular place and new officer joins, as to what would be the data available with the new incumbent to know about the criminal activities in a particular area, village or city, is a matter of significance. Past record, including a history sheet as well as record of keeping a history sheeter under surveillance, therefore, would then be a guiding factor. A history sheet, therefore, is simply a sacrosanct idea to have inputs and information about criminals and their past record for a better police administration. MODERN AGE CHALLENGES FOR CRIME CONTROLLING AGENCIES 16. This is the era of ‘Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems’ (in short ‘CCTNS’). Criminal Tracking System has not changed much since the days of British Rule in India. Most of the work is still done by the investigating agencies manually despite advancement in technology. The problem is compounded multifold with police stations across the country having gaps in technological co-ordination and harmony and lack of technical know-how itself. While some States are well equipped with the technological upgradation, others are still living in old era. Even the ones with advanced technology cannot handle the huge volume of criminal cases. Therefore, the objective is putting in place a comprehensive and integrated system for enhancing efficiency and effectiveness of policing at the police station level throughout the country and this is what CCTNS is meant for. 17. The objectives of CCTNS are to facilitate a citizen friendly functioning of the police, automating the functioning of police stations for greater accountability and transparency, to enhance the functioning of the police in several other zones such as law and order, traffic management etc, to maintain appropriate track of development of cases including in courts and decrease manual and redundant record keeping. In relation to the concept of history sheeters, the objective of CCTNS is to enable sharing of information and interaction among police stations, districts, State and Union Territory’s Headquarters and other police agencies. In relation to the concept of history sheeters, the objective of CCTNS is to enable sharing of information and interaction among police stations, districts, State and Union Territory’s Headquarters and other police agencies. CCTNS should be implemented by integrating all criminal data and records into a Central Software that will be installed in all police stations across India. It will help the agencies in detection of crime as well as those who have committed the crime. It is a faster and easier access to crime and criminals, particularly, when Cyber crimes are expanding their branches throughout the country. Hence, electronification of history sheeters with the help of CCTNS would be a boon to the criminal investigation concept as a whole. FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE 18. A First Information Report dated 04.05.1998 was lodged against the petitioner and one Chhedi Lal Gupta that was registered at Case Crime No.118 of 1998, under Section 489 IPC at Police Station Audyogik Kshetra Naini, District Allahabad. The allegation against the accused persons was that they were found in possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes. Investigation was conducted by the police and a charge sheet dated 07.07.1999 was submitted against both the accused persons, on which, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Allahabad took cognizance on 06.06.2000 and the petitioner was summoned to face trial of Criminal Case No.1087 of 2006 (State of U.P. Vs. Chhedi Lal and others). 19. Challenging the proceedings of aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner filed an Application U/S 482 No.9185 of 2009 (Aftab Alam Vs. State of U.P. and others) before this Court. The said application was allowed on 06.09.2018. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner filed a certified copy of the order dated 06.09.2018 before the concerned Magistrate, who, in compliance of the order of this Court, quashed the proceedings of Case Case No.1087 of 2006, vide Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. 20. The case of the petitioner, as pleaded in the writ petition, is that apart from the aforesaid solitary case registered at Crime No.118 of 1998, no other case is pending against him, however, the history sheet is still being kept open, which is not just and proper. 20. The case of the petitioner, as pleaded in the writ petition, is that apart from the aforesaid solitary case registered at Crime No.118 of 1998, no other case is pending against him, however, the history sheet is still being kept open, which is not just and proper. Application of Regulation 228 of ‘U.P. Police Regulations’ (for short ‘the Regulations’) has also been pleaded and the main ground for claiming reliefs is quashing of the proceedings of the solitary case No.1087 of 2006, as aforesaid. COUNTER AFFIDAVIT 21. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State mainly contained that in view of registration of case at Crime No.118 of 1998, the petitioner is a criminal minded person named in the first information report under Section 489 IPC; that the history sheet has been opened as per Regulation 238 of the Regulations and that the petitioner’s activities are under surveillance in accordance with law. It has not been disputed in the counter affidavit that except the aforesaid case registered at Crime No.118 of 1998, there is any other case registered or pending against the petitioner. REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT 22. The rejoinder affidavit reiterates the stand taken in the writ petition and it has been pleaded that, as per Regulation 228, history sheets of a criminal should be opened only for persons who are likely to become habitual criminals or abettors of such criminals, whereas the petitioner is a well-educated person and not a criminal minded person and the proceedings of solitary case, registered at Crime No.118 of 1998, have already been quashed. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 23. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 23. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is primarily two fold: (i) There being solitary case registered at Crime No.118 of 1998 against the petitioner, the proceedings whereof have already been quashed pursuant to the order dated 06.09.2018 passed in Application No. 482 No. 9185 of 2009 and the order of Magistrate dated 22.11.2018, there is no justification to keep the history sheet No.21-B open; and (ii) As per Regulation 228 of the Regulations, history sheet can be opened only for persons who are or likely to become habitual criminals or abettors of such criminals and in so far as Class ‘B’ history sheets are concerned, they are issued for confirmed and professional criminals of the categories specified in the said Regulations, whereas the petitioner does not fall within any of the Clause/ sub-clauses of the said Regulations and, hence, the history sheet is liable to be quashed. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Krishna Chandra Singh Vs. State of U.P.: 2015 (11) ADJ 219 and he submits that, under identical circumstances, this Court had quashed the history sheet of Class ‘B’ by relying upon Regulation 228. He has also placed reliance on other judgments of this Court pronounced in Mohammad Naeem @ Neem Babu: 2015 LawSuit (All) 3335; Sanjay Karnwal Vs. State of U.P.: 2010(7) ADJ 510 ; Mohd. Safi Vs. State of Uttarakhand: 2013 (2) UD 600 ; and Zaved Akhtar Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.14644 of 2019, decided on 21.11.2022, rendered on the same issue. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE 25. Per contra, Mrs. Manju Thakur, learned AGA-1 along with Sri G.P. Singh, learned AGA-1, have vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that there being no provision under any law including U.P. Police Regulations whereunder the police authorities are under any obligation or compulsion to close the history sheet, the prayer for quashing the history sheet is thoroughly misconceived and cannot be granted. They further submitted that apart from Regulation 228, two more Regulations, i.e. Regulations 232 and 234 need to be looked into which provide that history sheet of Class ‘B’ will remain continuously open and the concerned history sheeter would remain under surveillance until his death. They further submitted that apart from Regulation 228, two more Regulations, i.e. Regulations 232 and 234 need to be looked into which provide that history sheet of Class ‘B’ will remain continuously open and the concerned history sheeter would remain under surveillance until his death. U.P. POLICE REGULATIONS 26. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to throw light on the provisions concerning history sheets, as applicable in the State of U.P., as contained under U.P. Police Regulations. Relevant Regulations are reproduced 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 unstarred, 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 ''unstarring' ex-convicts and especially ex-convict dacoits great care should be exercised. 232. ‘B’ Class History Sheets-History-sheet of ‘B’ class will be continuously open records and the subjects of these sheets will, except for very special reasons remain under surveillance until death. This being so it is unnecessary to ‘star’ suspects of this class. 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 unstarring' 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. Proposals from station officers for the discontinuance of history-sheets and for the ''starring or unstarring' 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. (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. ANALYSIS 27. While this Court is satisfied that opening of the history in the year 2009 against the petitioner was not illegal inasmuch as, by that time, there was a case registered against the petitioner at Crime No.118 of 1998 in which cognizance was also taken by the concerned Magistrate in the year 2000, however, the proceedings of said case were quashed after eighteen years in the year 2018, as aforesaid, and, therefore, this Court finds that the grounds for claiming reliefs as prayed in the present writ petition are based upon subsequent developments. The Court, therefore, proceeds to examine as to whether the history sheet can be closed or quashed or whether any other course recognized under the law is still open for the police authorities. 28. A bare perusal of Regulation 228 would show that the language used therein is unambiguous and there is a clear mandate that history sheet can be opened only for persons who are or likely to become habitual criminal or abettors of such criminals. 28. A bare perusal of Regulation 228 would show that the language used therein is unambiguous and there is a clear mandate that history sheet can be opened only for persons who are or likely to become habitual criminal or abettors of such criminals. Classification of history sheets in Class ‘A’ and Class ‘B’ is also clearly spelt out and since challenge in the present writ petition has been laid to history sheet of Class ‘B’, sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 228 needs a look that clearly provides that such history sheet can be opened for ‘confirmed and professional criminals’ who commit crimes other than dacoity, burglary, cattle-theft etc etc, as described in the said sub-regulation. 29. Regulation 232, however, casts an obligation upon the authorities to keep history sheet continuously open and to keep the history sheeter under surveillance until death. However, for such an action, the authorities have to record special reasons. Regulation 233 clearly provides that discontinuance of surveillance of the subject of a history sheet does not entail closing of the history sheet itself and the history sheet which is only a record of information need never be considered as closed. It casts a further obligation on the authorities to make a note as regards discontinuance of surveillance on the history sheet and, thereafter, no periodical or other entries need be made unless something comes to the notice of the authorities which is desirable to be entered in the sheet. 30. This Court has respectfully perused the judgments, relied upon by the petitioners, and it transpires that this Court in those cases took note of the circumstances under which history sheets were opened against the concerned offenders and, for the reasons stated in the judgments, history sheet was either directed to be closed or the authorities were directed to wipe out the name of the concerned offender from the surveillance register. However, in the present case, the question to be considered is as to whether the history sheet of Class-‘B’ can be closed forever or can it be quashed in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 31. This Court finds that there is no provision under U.P. Police Regulations for closure of a history sheet of Class-’B’. 31. This Court finds that there is no provision under U.P. Police Regulations for closure of a history sheet of Class-’B’. The Regulations, as noted above, however, cast an obligation upon the police authorities to record SPECIAL REASONS TO KEEP AN OFFENDER UNDER SURVEILLANCE UNTIL HIS DEATH. As a matter of fact, Regulation 233 clearly provides that a history sheet which is only a record of information need never be considered as closed. Nevertheless, making of various entries on the open history sheet is subject to periodical review, as noted above. 32. In Dhananjaya Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka 2001 (4) SCC 9 , the Supreme Court held that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain manner, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala 2002 (1) SCC 633 , it was held that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself. The judgments in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (supra) and Dhananjaya Reddy (supra) have been followed in Captain Sube Singh & others Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & others 2004 (6) SCC 440 . Similar view was taken in State of Jharkhand & others Vs. Ambay Cements & another 2005 (1) SCC 368 and Competent Authority Vs. Barangore Jute Factory & others 2005 (13) SCC 477 . 33. The principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be achieved indirectly is also well settled and was elaborated by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. K. Shyam Sunder and Others: (2011) 8 SCC 737 laying down that what cannot be done directly, is not permissible to be done obliquely, meaning thereby, whatever is prohibited by law to be done, cannot legally be effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance on the principle of quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad illud. An authority cannot be permitted to evade a law by ‘shift or contrivance’.” (Also see Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh: (1979) 1 SCC 560 , M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath: (2000) 6 SCC 213 and Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. (2010) 13 SCC 336 ). CONCLUSION 34. An authority cannot be permitted to evade a law by ‘shift or contrivance’.” (Also see Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh: (1979) 1 SCC 560 , M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath: (2000) 6 SCC 213 and Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. (2010) 13 SCC 336 ). CONCLUSION 34. In view of the above discussion and the admitted position of fact that apart from solitary case registered at Crime No.118 of 1998, proceedings whereof have already been quashed, there being no other case registered against the petitioner, the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the Range (D.I.G. concerned) has to record special reasons as to why despite quashing of the solitary case, the petitioner is still required to be kept under continuous surveillance. For the said purpose, it is open for the petitioner to submit a representation before the D.I.G. concerned bringing on record all the facts and proceedings which are sufficient for the D.I.G. to form an opinion to keep or not to keep the petitioner under surveillance and to make relevant entry on the history sheet as per Regulations 232 and 233. 35. This Court also notices that apart from seeking a relief of certiorari requesting quashing of history sheet of Class ‘B’, the petitioner has prayed for a direction for the respondents not to keep him under surveillance and the basis of petitioner’s claim is apparently quashing of the solitary Criminal Case No.1087 of 2006, as noted above. While reserving the judgment in the present case on 06.02.2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to implead the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the Range to the writ petition. Necessary impleadment was carried out on the same day. 36. In view of the above discussion, while no writ of certiorari can be issued quashing the history sheet opened against the petitioner, the petitioner is certainly entitled to submit a representation before the D.I.G. concerned, as noted above. Necessary impleadment was carried out on the same day. 36. In view of the above discussion, while no writ of certiorari can be issued quashing the history sheet opened against the petitioner, the petitioner is certainly entitled to submit a representation before the D.I.G. concerned, as noted above. Therefore, giving liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation before the D.I.G. concerned along with certified copy of this order, ventilating his grievance, as per the observations made in the present order, the petition stands disposed off with a direction that, in case, such a representation is filed within a period of one month from the date of delivery of this judgment, the D.I.G. concerned shall pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in consonance with Regulations 232 and 233 and any other relevant Regulation of the U.P. Police Regulations, after dealing with each and every ground raised before him by the petitioner through his representation, within a period of next two months after providing opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and after summoning relevant records from the concerned police station.