( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the correctness of the proposal of the S. H. O. Police Station Rajinder Nagar and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, to open the history sheet and to enter his name in the Police Surveillance Register. He also seeks the issuance of a writ, order or direction requiring the respondents, to remove the entries from the said registers and closure of the history sheet.

( 2 ) THE respondents in their counter have justified the action by alleging that the petitioner is a desperate character of the area. After migration from Pakistan in 1947 he started his criminal activities in the year 1962. Since then, he has been involved in 15 criminal cases. The S. H. O. of Police Station Parliament Street suggested the opening of the history sheet and sent a copy of the same to the Police Station Rajinder Nagar where the petitioner was residing. Keeping in view his long standing record the S. H. O. Police Station Rajinder Nagar made a proposal for bringing his name in bundle a and to keep him under surveillance on 14-2-1976. The then Deputy Commissioner of Police South District approved the proposal vide order dated 20-5-1976. Since then discreet watch is being kept on his activities.

( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders of the respondents are not only in violation of the Punjab Police Rules but are in flagrant disregard of tlie dictum laid down by this court as also by the Supreme Court of India. The relevant rules are :

( 4 ) UNDER Sub-rule (3) of Rule 23. 4, the name of a person may be entered in part II of the Surveillance Register at the discretion of the Superintendent of Police:

(A) If he has been convicted twice or more than twice of offences mentioned in Rule 27. 29 ;

(B) If he is reasonably believed to be habitual offender or receiver of stolen property whether he has been convicted or not ;

(C) person under security under Section 109 or 110 Cr. P. C.

(D) convicts released before the expiration of their sentences under the Prisons Act and Remission Rules without the imposition of any conditions.

( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, the case of the petitioner does not fall under Clauses (a), (c) or (d ). The only provision which would be applicable to the instant case would be Clause (b ). The condition precedent to the entry of the names of the suspect under this clause being that he is a person who is reasonably believed to be habitual offender of receiver of stolen property whether he has been convicted or not.

( 6 ) THE other rules which also need consideration in this context are, Rule 23. 5 (1) which, inter aha, says down that no entry shall be made in part II except by the order of the Superintendent who is strictly prohibited from delegating his authority. Rule 23. 5 (2) provides for opening of history sheets prior to a person s name being put on the surveillance register. This rule reads as under:

"ordinarily, before the name of any person is entered in part II of the Surveillance Register, the history sheet shall be opened for such person. If from the entries in the history sheet, the Superintendent is of opinion that such person shall be subjected to surveillance, he shall enter his name in Part II of the Surveillance Register ; Provided that the names of the persons who have never been convicted or placed on the security for good behaviour shall not be entered until the Superintendent has recorded definite reasons for doing so. "

( 7 ) RULE 23. 9 (1) prescribes the form in which the history sheet is to be opened for a person whose name is entered in the Surveillance Register, unless one does not already exist. Under Sub-rule (2) thereof, the history sheet may be opened by or under the written orders of the Police Officer who is not below the rank of Inspector, for any person not entered in the Surveillance Register who is reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abetter of such p