Judgement

BACHAWAT, J.- The appellant is an employee of the Northern Railway. The first respondent is the Superintendent of Police, North District, Delhi. The second respondent is the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Delhi. The second respondent opened a history sheet for the appellant, and the first respondent directed the entry of his name in Part II of the surveillance register, commonly known as police register No. 10. The history sheet and the register are kept under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 framed under the Indian Police Act, 1861. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court challenging the legality of these and other actions of the respondents and asking for the issue of appropriate writs. The High Court dismissed the petition. The appellant now appeals to this Court by special leave.

2. Rules 23.4 to 23.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 deal with police register No. 10, Rule 23.4 (3) (b) empowers the Superintendent of Police to enter in his discretion in Part II of the register the names of "persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not. Rule 23.5 provides that the names of persons who have never been convicted or placed on security for good behaviour shall not be so entered until the Superintendent has recorded definite reasons for doing so. The records of such reasons are treated as confidential. Under R. 23.7, the suspect is subjected to police surveillance comprising such close watch over his movements by police officers, village headmen, village watchmen as may be practicable without any illegal interference. Rules 23.8 to 23.12 and 23.14 deal with history sheets. Under R. 23.9 (2), a history sheet may be opened by or under the written orders of a police officer not below the rank of inspector for any person not entered in police register No. 10 "who is reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor of such persons . The history sheet is in Form No. 23.9 and contains the description of the suspect, particulars of his property and mode of earning livelihood, his relations, connections and associates, the crimes to which he is believed to be addicted, his convictions, if any, and his movements, and details of the written and oral suspicions including the names and residences of the complainants. Under R. 23.10, history sheets are kept in three separate bundles. Bundle A contains the history sheets of persons whose names are entered in police register No. 10. The validity of the rules is not challenged before us.

3. The appellant is involved in a number of litigations, civil and criminal, with several railway officials. He complains that the respondents subjected him to numerous harassments and in opening his history sheet and placing his name in the police register No. 10, they acted mala fide and in collusion with the railway officials. The charges of harassment and collusion with the railway officials are not proved. It is not shown that the respondents had any personal enmity with the appellant. The High Court rightly found that the charge of mala fides is not proved.

4. Counsel for the appellant contended that the order directing the entry of the appellant s name in police register No. 10 did not disclose on the face of it either the belief of the first respondent that the appellant was a habitual offender or the grounds of such belief and the order was therefore, invalid. We are unable to accept this contention. It appears that the history sheet of the appellant was submitted by the second respondent to Sri Mukat Dhari Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who placed his recommendation before the first respondent. On a perusal of the history sheet and the recommendations, the first respondent by an order dated May 17, 1963 directed the entry of the appellant s name in Part II of police register No. 10. The relevant recommendations and order are in th