Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.—Heard Sri K.D. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Mehrotra A.G.A. on behalf of the State.

2. The prayer in the instant writ petition is for a writ of certiorari to quash History Sheet No. 60-A declaring the petitioner as History sheeter dated 12.10.2007 and the order dated 24.5.2008 passed by respondent No. 2, Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur rejecting petitioner’s representation against opening of history sheet.

3. The facts giving rise to the dispute are that an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner alleging that mining work was carried out in contravention of provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as well as U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. The petitioner was alleged to have indulged in illegal mining of 5,000 cubic meters in mining area known as Yamuna River Dikka Kala, Tehsil Nakud and Tehsil Sadar, District Saharanpur. Similar allegations were levelled in the three F.I.Rs. registered at case crime Nos. 177 of 2007 dated 26.5.2007, 176 of 2007 dated 27.5.2007 and 139 of 2007 dated 28.5.2007. The three reports are annexed with the writ petition as Annexures 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The petitioner moved an application before the Secretary Mines and Minerals U.P. Government, Lucknow after he came to know about the F.I.Rs. lodged against him alongwith others. On the basis of said application, an inquiry was conducted constituting an inquiry committee of three members. Annexure-5 to the writ petition is a letter dated 19.10.2007 alongwith report of inquiry committee wherein the Director, Geology Mining U.P., Lucknow stated that the petitioner and others were not found involved in theft or illegal mining. It appears that there were other complaints as well regarding illegal mining and the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Saharanpur issued a circular on 15.9.2007 pursuant to an order dated 12.8.2007 of the Inspector General of Police and Additional Director General of Police, State of U.P. to all the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police calling for a report of history sheet in a computerized C.D. excluding name of such persons in respect of whom a false history sheet has been opened pertaining to minor offence. This Circular is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. However, the Station House Officer respondent No. 3 submitted a report against the petitioner and his brother Dr. Naveen Karnwal and consequent thereon, History sheet No. 60-A was opened. Representations were given by the petitioner and his brother.

4. Sri K.D. Tiwari has specifically brought to our notice that only cases on the basis of which History sheet has been opened, are the F.I.R. under Section 3/57/21 of the Act. Grievance of the petitioner is that proceedings have been initiated at the instance of rival competitors who were also involved in mining work and in collusion with the concerned authorities. Besides, opening of History sheet using term ‘Mafia’ for the petitioner is a blatant misuse of the powers by the police authorities. The petitioner had approached this Court and challenged the History Sheet No. 60-A in a Writ Petition No. 21086 of 2007, Sanjay Karnwal v. State of U.P. and others. The ground of challenge was that offences mentioned in Regulation 228(1) of the Police Regulations do not include the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the concerned officer to decide the representation within two months from the date on which certified copy of the order alongwith self attested copy of the writ petition is presented. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the petitioner had moved a representation before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur and the same was rejected on 24.5.2008. A copy of the order is annexed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition.

5. Sri K.D. Tiwari has br