Mohd. Usman Alias Haji Vs. State (Delhi Administration) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
punjab police rules - rule 23--while accepting the recommendation of the acp that the petitioner's name be kept on surveillance register and to keep his history sheet, dcp did not pass any speaking order.; that merely approving the recommendation is not enough. the entry was quashed. - - however, the only plea pressed before us is that on the respondents' own showing, the deputy commissioner of police (central district) while approving of the recommendations of the assistant commissioner of police of that very area, who had recommended that the petitioner's name be kept on the surveillance register, did not pass any speaking order. of the area recommended to keep the petitioner in surveillance register no.charanjit talwar, j.(1) by this petition, mohd. usman @ haji seeks directions to the respondents to remove his name from the surveillance register and also to close the history sheet, which was opened on the directions of the station house officer of police station, chandni mahal, delhi. a number of grounds have been taken in the petition. however, the only plea pressed before us is that on the respondents' own showing, the deputy commissioner of police (central district) while approving of the recommendations of the assistant commissioner of police of that very area, who had recommended that the petitioner's name be kept on the surveillance register, did not pass any speaking order. the admitted position is given in the affidavit of shri m.s. chhikara, s.h.o. of police station, chandni mahal, delhi, which affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents in answer to the show cause. it is averred: 'as the petitioner has been a notorious satta gambler the a.c.p. of the area recommended to keep the petitioner in surveillance register no. x part ii and to keep the history-sheet in bundle 'a'. it was approved by the d.c.p. (central) on 24-9-1987 where- after the petitioner is kept under discreet surveillance without interfering his private life or harassing him in any manner.'(2) thus the violation of the mandatory provisions of punjab police rules 23.4, 23.5 (2) and 23.9(1) has been committed, it is urged.(3) in a number of authorities, this court has held that the superintendent of police, who in delhi is designated as deputy commissioner of police, has to give definite reasons for his reasonable belief. merely approving of the recommendations, is not enough. following the law laid in peter samuel wallace v. inspector general of police, new delhi 1981 cr. l.j. 1195, we quash the entry relating to the petitioner in the surveillance register. we further direct that the operation of the history sheet of the petitioner opened by respondent no. 2 be stopped forthwith. the petition is allowed.