year commencing from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012. From the original history sheet, I find that during every English Calendar month, the Sub Inspector of Police, Mudis Police Station, had recorded that he checked the petitioner periodically and found him doing tailoring business and living with his family. There was no adverse entry at all found in respect of the conduct of the petitioner. From the entry on 08.01.2009 onwards till the entry made on 08.03.2013, in none of the recordings of the Sub Inspector of Police I could find that the petitioner had any adverse or suspicious conduct on his part. Except recording that the petitioner is running a tailoring shop and residing in Mudis Town, no adverse entry has been found. When that be so, it is not understandable, as to how, the Deputy Superintendent of Police passed the order dated 01.01.2013 to retain the history sheet till 31.12.2013. This order, in my considered opinion, does not satisfy any legal norms. First of all, this order does not reflect the application of mind on the part of the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned. Had he applied his mind into the recordings of the Sub Inspector of Police during the last one year, for want of any adverse conduct on the part of the petitioner, the Deputy Superintendent of Police would not have passed an order of this nature to retain the history sheet for yet another period of one year. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, the action of the State should satisfy three basic requirements, in as much as, the order should be fair, just and reasonable. When a restriction is sought to be imposed on the fundamental rights of a citizen, the authority concerned should have a deep application of mind into the facts placed before him and he should pass an order recording his reasons thereby ensuring that the order is fair, just and reasonable. If an order does not reflect reasons or grounds upon which the same is passed, certainly it will suffer from the vice of arbitrariness infringing upon the fundamental rights of the individual. In my considered opinion, in the instant case, the repeated orders passed against the petitioner
