- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. R.K.Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents.
(2.) These proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to close the history sheet No. 265-A/2007 initially maintained at Police Station Hazratganj which now stands transferred to Police Station Wazirganj, Lucknow, opened against the petitioner.
(3.) At the outset, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has brought to the notice of the Court that an order dated 20.07.2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7101 of 2011, which too was filed by the petitioner, seeking a prayer for issuing direction for closure of history sheet. The said order has been annexed as annexure No. 1 to the writ petition and reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally. The grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner's history sheet No. A-265/2007 has been opened at the Police Station-Hazratganj, District-Lucknow. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of opposite parties, the petitioner has preferred a representation dated 27-05-2011, copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition, but, in spite of his best efforts, no order has been passed on the said representation. The petitioner is still under surveillance and the continuance of surveillance deprives the petitioner of his right of free movement as provided under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. As the petitioner's representation for his grievance is already pending for disposal and as such, we are not entering into the merits of the case and we provide that the representation which has been submitted by the petitioner for closure of the history sheet No. A-265/2007, may be decided by the competent authority, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. and others, 1992 SCC(Cri) 516. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.";