NAURATA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition of Naurata Ram under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the validity of the Police Rules authorising the Station House Officer to maintain a surveillance register. According to the petitioner, his name has been kept in the Surveillance Register known as Basta Bad mashan 'be (Register No. 10) out of sheer malice and is being prominently displayed to the public thus lowering his name and reputation. it has been settled by a Division Bench judgment of Chief Justice Khosla and Tek Chand J. in Tirlok Singh v. Superintendent of Police, Ferozepore. 1959-61 Pun LR 441 : (AIR 1959 Punj 323) that "the maintaining of Surveillance Register No. 10 under Police Rule 23 (4) is, in no way, unconstitutional or illegal provided the police officer does not interfere with the personal liberty or movements of the individuals whose names are entered in the register". There is no allegation in the present instance that the police is trying to interfere with the movements or personal liberty of the petitioner. All that is asserted in paragraph 9 is that the petitioner has learnt that the police has hung up his name in the office "on a list of those whose names appear on Badmashan Basla Be" which list, according to him. "is publicly displayed with the intention to publicise the fact" In the answer filed on behalf of the State, the list of persons whose history sheets are placed in Basta Be is kept at the police station merely for the guidance and convenience of the police officials to facilitate them in the discharge of their duties. It is not meant for publicity in any way and is used only by the police officials in the discharge of their duties. As was observed in Tirlok Singh's case. 1959-61 Pun LR 441. (AIR 1959 Punj 323) the Surveillance Register is a confidential document and there is nothing to suggest in the rules that it can be hung in a public place It has been denied on behalf of the State that the name of the petitioner is publicised in any manner alleged by him in the petition. In view of this assurance in the written statement and the allegation being specifically denied, there seems to be no force left in this petition which fails and is dismissed In the circum stances, I would make no order as to costs.