1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that he is dropping his challenge so far as the validity of Rule 698(3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Rules, 1960, is concerned and is confining his submission only with regard to the entering the name of the petitioner in Surveillance Register No. 10.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he being a businessman applied to the Tehsildar, Executive Magistrate (1st Class), Jammu, in the month of Feb 04, for issuance of a character certificate. As the petitioner earlier was residing in Mohalla Talab Khatikan, Jammu, the aforesaid officer after getting a report from SHO Police Station, Pir Mitha, Jammu, issued a character certificate dt. 20th of Feb 04, in favour of the petitioner mentioning therein that the petitioner bears a good moral character. The petitioner thereafter applied before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, for issuance of character certificate which was issued in his favour vide No. PHS/CV/08/199 dt. 15th of Sept 08, wherein it has been mentioned as under:-

As reported by SHO Police Station Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, Badri Nath S/o Late Sh. Garib Dass R/o H. No. 28/5 Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, was involved in case FIR No.20/83 U/S 382 RPC (2) FIR No. 172/83 U/S 457/380 RPC (3) FIR No. 10/86 U/S 341/307/34 RPC registered at P/S City. All challaned of the cases produced in the court of law wherein the applicant was acquitted from all the cases. Moreover, the applicant is History sheeter. His History sheet was opened at P/S city in 1983. His History sheet vide SP City South Jammu letter No. 7259-60/SPCJ dated 24.08.2005 has been kept in personal file. The applicant is silent now, and he is the leader of BSP. He running a stone crusher at Bantalab, Jammu."

3. It is the above certificate issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

4. Mr. K.S. Johl, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no material available with the respondents on the basis of which they could entertain a reasonable belief that the petitioner is a habitual offender or receiver of stolen property or that he is a threat to the security of the State, and thus, there was no justification for inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the Surveillance Register 10. It is further submitted that order of surveillance is a serious encroachment on the fundamental freedom guaranteed to a citizen, and therefore, before entering the name of the petitioner in the Surveillance register No. 10, it was necessary on the part of the respondents to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and to provide him an opportunity of hearing.

5. This matter was taken up on 29th of Oct 08. Mr. S.C. Gupta, learned AAG, sought time to file reply. Needful, however, has not been done. Admit. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

6. Let me first deal with the contention raised by Mr. Johl, learned counsel for the petitioner that before entering the name of the petitioner in the Surveillance Register No. 10, the petitioner should have been issued a show cause notice. I am of the opinion that the said contention is not sustainable. The surveillance cannot be such which obstructs the free exercise and enjoyment of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to a citizen but at the same time, it be seen that the prevention of crime is one of the prime duty of the Police force. In connection with these duties, it is necessary to keep a discreet surveillance over the suspects, habitual and other potential offenders. Therefore, the surveillance registers have to be kept confidential and a person whose name has been entered in the surveillance register or any other member of the public should not have an access to the same. In case, a notice is given to the person before entering his name in the surveillance register, as is the submission made by the learned counsel for the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document