ORDER : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. All the above Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions involve the same question as to whether history-sheet under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 (for short, 'Rules of 1965') can be opened in respect of the petitioners and can their names be entered in the surveillance register or not? Hence, with the consent of all the parties, above petitions are being decided by this common order. 2. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners submit that the police authorities have committed serious error of law and jurisdiction and their names have been illegally entered in the surveillance register in ignorance of Rules 4.4 and 4.9 of the Rules of 1965 as well as the provisions of the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953 (for short, 'the Act of 1953'). 3. Learned counsels for the petitioners have also submitted that the petitioners, despite there being several criminal cases against them, would not come within the purview of 'habitual offender' as defined under the Act of 1953. As per guidelines, not each and every pending case or decided case could be taken into consideration by the police authorities for entering name of any person in the surveillance register. 4. It is also submitted by the learned counsels for the petitioners that the action of putting the name in surveillance register has got drastic consequences and would infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioners. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed all the above petitions and submitted that in all the cases history-sheet have been prepared strictly in accordance with the Rules and while exercising the powers as per law. 6. Learned counsels for the petitioners have relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in a batch of matter led by S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.792/2016 (Sanjay Vs. 6. Learned counsels for the petitioners have relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in a batch of matter led by S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.792/2016 (Sanjay Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), in which after considering the relevant guidelines in the Rules of 1965 as well as in the Act of 1953, as also by considering earlier judgments, following guidelines have been given: " 9.1 For the sake of brevity, this Court arrives at the following uniform criteria to determine whether an entry of a person's name in the surveillance register is justifies: (a) A person having three consecutive convictions against him, and being a habitual offender, shall be liable for continuance of entry of his name in the surveillance register, while declaring him as a history-sheeter; however, if the convictions are 15 years or before, then the history sheet/entry of his name in the surveillance register will not fall in this criteria of sustenance. OR (b) If a person is having more than ten cases against him, in totality, irrespective of the result, his name, at the discretion of the concerned authority, entered in the surveillance register, while declaring him as a history-sheeter, is justified and deserves continuance; but if a person if having more than ten cases and all of them are 10 years old, then the history sheet/entry of his name in the surveillance register, will not fall in this criteria of sustenance. 9.2 As an upshot of the above, this Court observes that a history-sheet shall be amenable to judicial scrutiny as above, and thus, while keeping into consideration Rule 4.4 and Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 and the precedent law, this Court is of the opinion that the entry of a person's name in the surveillance register/history sheet, on count of his being a habitual offender, shall not be interfered with, if there are three consecutive convictions against such person, or such an entry in the history sheet/surveillance register shall not be interfered with, if a person is having more than 10 cases, in totality, against him, irrespective of the result. (The condition of 10 cases shall not apply, if there are no cases in last 10 years; similarly, if the convictions are 15 years or before, then again the exclusion of the person's name from the history sheet/surveillance register shall be warranted). 9.3 This Court thus observes that if a person suffers from any of the above disqualifications, then he shall be disentitled from claiming relief against being declared as a history-sheeter. It is relevant to note that in Diwan Singh (supra) , while granting relief to the petitioner therein, it was observed that the petitioner therein was a senior citizen against whom the last conviction was in the year 2003, and the last case registered against him was in the year 2007, while his case had come up for final adjudication in the year 2022." 7. Heard and considered. 8. In the light of the facts of the cases and the guidelines earlier given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the judgment of Sanjay (supra) decided on 23.01.2023, wherein after considering the rival contentions and in order to regulate the procedure for entering any person's name in the surveillance register, specific directions were issued, at this stage, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of all the above Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions with a direction to respective petitioners to submit their detailed representation along with copy of the judgment dated 23.01.2023, to the Commissioner/Superintendent of Police of their respective districts. 9. Such representation shall be given within a period of 15 days from today and upon receiving such representation, the concerned officer shall take into consideration the details of pending/decided cases against individual and thereafter, speaking order shall be passed within a period of one month while taking into consideration the directions given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in Paras 9.1 to 9.3 in the judgment of Sanjay (supra). The concerned authority is directed take a decision accordingly and where it is found that the earlier directing names of individuals to be entered in surveillance register are against the guidelines given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment of Sanjay (supra), their names be struck off from surveillance register and communication in this regard shall be given to the concerned petitioner. In other cases, where the order for placing the names in surveillance register is strictly in consonance with the guidelines in the aforesaid case of Sanjay (supra), the order shall be maintained as it is and action in accordance with law shall be taken. 10. Accordingly, all the above Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions stand disposed of. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.