BADRI NATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(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 Under Section 382 RPC (2) FIR No. 172/83 Under Section 457/380 RPC (3) FIR No. 10/86 Under Section 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.) 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.