Kamala W/O Harishchandra Dhawade Vs. O.P. Bali, Commissioner of Police and anr.

Decided On : Sep-30-2000

Court : Mumbai

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kamala W/O Harishchandra Dhawade Vs. O.P. Bali, Commissioner of Police and anr. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'section 10',
			(int) 1 => 'section 3',
			(int) 2 => 'section 57(a)(i',
			(int) 3 => 'the National Security Act',
			(int) 4 => 'the National Security Act',
			(int) 5 => 'the National Security Act',
			(int) 6 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 7 => 'Article 22(5',
			(int) 8 => 'Article 22(5',
			(int) 9 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 10 => 'section 34',
			(int) 11 => 'the Indian Penal Code'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'R.K. Batta',
			(int) 1 => 'the Advisory Board',
			(int) 2 => 'the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords',
			(int) 3 => 'Bootleggers, Drug Offenders',
			(int) 4 => 'The Advisory Board',
			(int) 5 => 'Government',
			(int) 6 => 'the Commissioner of Police',
			(int) 7 => 'Home Department (Special',
			(int) 8 => 'DDS',
			(int) 9 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 10 => 'the Maintenance of Internal Security Act',
			(int) 11 => 'the Bombay Police Act',
			(int) 12 => 'C.I.D.',
			(int) 13 => 'Nagpur',
			(int) 14 => 'the Commissioner of Police',
			(int) 15 => 'Nagpur',
			(int) 16 => 'the Advisory Board',
			(int) 17 => 'the Commissioner of Police',
			(int) 18 => 'Nagpur',
			(int) 19 => 'Court',
			(int) 20 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 21 => 'Learned Advocate',
			(int) 22 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 23 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 24 => 'Court',
			(int) 25 => 'the Apex Court',
			(int) 26 => 'State',
			(int) 27 => 'Government',
			(int) 28 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 29 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 30 => 'The Apex Court',
			(int) 31 => 'U.P.',
			(int) 32 => 'The Apex Court',
			(int) 33 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 34 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 35 => 'The Apex Court',
			(int) 36 => 'Union of India',
			(int) 37 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 38 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 39 => 'the Apex Court',
			(int) 40 => 'State of U.P',
			(int) 41 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 42 => 'Marathi',
			(int) 43 => 'Marathi',
			(int) 44 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 45 => 'Marathi',
			(int) 46 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 47 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 48 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 49 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 50 => 'The Apex Court',
			(int) 51 => 'Dharamdas',
			(int) 52 => 'Police Commissioner &',
			(int) 53 => 'Court',
			(int) 54 => 'Criminal Writ Petition',
			(int) 55 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 56 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 57 => 'Vidhan Sabha'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 2 => 'Fitrat',
			(int) 3 => 'English'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '20-12-1999',
			(int) 1 => '1981',
			(int) 2 => '22-12-1999',
			(int) 3 => '19th November, 1999',
			(int) 4 => '28-12-1999',
			(int) 5 => 'the year 1979',
			(int) 6 => 'the year 1978',
			(int) 7 => '1971',
			(int) 8 => 'two years',
			(int) 9 => 'the years 1974 to 1976',
			(int) 10 => 'a period of',
			(int) 11 => 'two years',
			(int) 12 => '18th October, 1981',
			(int) 13 => 'one year',
			(int) 14 => '1980',
			(int) 15 => '20-11-1983',
			(int) 16 => '23-12-1983',
			(int) 17 => '1980',
			(int) 18 => '12 days',
			(int) 19 => '20-12-1999',
			(int) 20 => '28-12-1999',
			(int) 21 => '1999',
			(int) 22 => '1272',
			(int) 23 => '1986',
			(int) 24 => '6-11-1999',
			(int) 25 => '418/99',
			(int) 26 => '1994',
			(int) 27 => 'the year',
			(int) 28 => 'the year of the',
			(int) 29 => 'the month of August',
			(int) 30 => '20-12-1999'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '8',
			(int) 1 => '17',
			(int) 2 => '21',
			(int) 3 => '1',
			(int) 4 => '8',
			(int) 5 => '51',
			(int) 6 => '12',
			(int) 7 => '14',
			(int) 8 => '14',
			(int) 9 => 'four',
			(int) 10 => '7-3-1978',
			(int) 11 => '15-3-1978',
			(int) 12 => '17-10-1982',
			(int) 13 => '1',
			(int) 14 => '30-4-1993.3',
			(int) 15 => 'one',
			(int) 16 => '323',
			(int) 17 => '506',
			(int) 18 => '34',
			(int) 19 => '120',
			(int) 20 => 'four',
			(int) 21 => 'one',
			(int) 22 => '272',
			(int) 23 => '99',
			(int) 24 => '2000(5)BomCR827',
			(int) 25 => '2000CriLJ3939',
			(int) 26 => '1',
			(int) 27 => '10',
			(int) 28 => '13',
			(int) 29 => '16',
			(int) 30 => '11',
			(int) 31 => 'four',
			(int) 32 => '1982CriLJ338',
			(int) 33 => '1991CriLJ3291',
			(int) 34 => 'one',
			(int) 35 => '1985CriLJ487',
			(int) 36 => '481',
			(int) 37 => '1995)3SCC237',
			(int) 38 => '2',
			(int) 39 => '51',
			(int) 40 => '51',
			(int) 41 => '2',
			(int) 42 => '51',
			(int) 43 => '3 to 10',
			(int) 44 => '13',
			(int) 45 => '16',
			(int) 46 => '11',
			(int) 47 => 'four',
			(int) 48 => '2',
			(int) 49 => '4',
			(int) 50 => '2',
			(int) 51 => '4',
			(int) 52 => '4',
			(int) 53 => 'only two',
			(int) 54 => 'two',
			(int) 55 => '1989CriLJ1130',
			(int) 56 => 'two',
			(int) 57 => 'Two',
			(int) 58 => '154',
			(int) 59 => '2000(II',
			(int) 60 => '139',
			(int) 61 => '262/99',
			(int) 62 => '2 to 10',
			(int) 63 => '323',
			(int) 64 => '506',
			(int) 65 => '34',
			(int) 66 => '120',
			(int) 67 => '15-10-1997',
			(int) 68 => '15-10-1999',
			(int) 69 => '26-11-1999',
			(int) 70 => 'four',
			(int) 71 => 'only one',
			(int) 72 => '323',
			(int) 73 => '506',
			(int) 74 => '120',
			(int) 75 => 'four'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Government Order',
			(int) 1 => 'Sadashiv Ghate v. State',
			(int) 2 => 'Cri',
			(int) 3 => 'Shankar Acharya',
			(int) 4 => 'Khan v. State',
			(int) 5 => 'Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union',
			(int) 6 => 'Ajuay Dixit',
			(int) 7 => 'Kumar Singh',
			(int) 8 => 'Jabbarmiya Shaikh',
			(int) 9 => 'M.M. Mehta',
			(int) 10 => 'Addl',
			(int) 11 => 'Shamlal Aggarwal',
			(int) 12 => 'Sunil Bhagat v. State',
			(int) 13 => 'Addl',
			(int) 14 => 'Nagpur',
			(int) 15 => 'Addl',
			(int) 16 => 'Anil',
			(int) 17 => 'Harishchandra Madhavrao Dhawade'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Nagpur City',
			(int) 1 => 'Sunil',
			(int) 2 => 'Vashisht',
			(int) 3 => 'Karwaria',
			(int) 4 => 'A.I.R.',
			(int) 5 => 'S.C.',
			(int) 6 => 'S.C.C.',
			(int) 7 => 'Cri.',
			(int) 8 => 'Anil v. State',
			(int) 9 => 'C.R.',
			(int) 10 => 'C.C.R.'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => '386',
			(int) 1 => '386',
			(int) 2 => '386'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first',
			(int) 1 => 'first',
			(int) 2 => 'first'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Constitution of India',
			(int) 1 => 'the Constitution of India'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => '8-1-2000'
		),
		'LANGUAGE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'English'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '363325',
			'acts' => 'Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 - Sections 3(1); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 22(5)',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Writ Petition No. 149 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Kamala W/O Harishchandra Dhawade',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kamala W/O Harishchandra Dhawade Vs. O.P. Bali, Commissioner of Police and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - detention Order - Section 3 (1) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 and Article 22 (5) of Constitution of India - detention Order challenged on various grounds - detenue to be served detention Order in language known by him - non compliance with such procedure renders detention Order as vitiated - translation of Order furnished to detenue does not contain all grounds - past history of detenue relied upon by detaining authority to arrive at conclusion - no grounds made out proving acts of detenue as prejudicial to maintenance of public order - detention Order liable to be set aside.


 - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  10. Besides this, it is now well settled by a series of judgments of the Apex Court, viz. It is now well settled that the detenu must be served with the detention order in the language known by the detenu and in case the translation of relevant documents or part of document in the language known by the detenu is not furnished, it vitiates the detention order. In addition, we would like to point out that many of the instances of criminal offences which have been referred to in para 2 and para 4 of the detention order must have been disposed of and if anyone of those matters had ended in favour of the detenu, then obviously the same could not be referred even to show course of conduct since acquittal obliterates the offence itself.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'M.R. Daga, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.B. Yengal, A.P.P.',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-09-30',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'R.K. Batta and ;P.S. Brahme, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.K. Batta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The wife of the detenu has filed this petition seeking to quash and set aside detention order dated 20-12-1999 which was served on the detenu on 8-1-2000. Reference was made to the Advisory Board under section 10 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short, the said 'Act') on 17-1-2000. The Advisory Board gave its opinion on 22-12-1999 and the Government confirmed the order of detention on 21-2-2000.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The detention order was issued by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur in exercise of power conferred under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act read with Government Order, Home Department (Special), No. DDS. 1399/4/SPL-3 (B) dated 19th November, 1999. The same was approved by the State Government on 28-12-1999. The detention order and the grounds of detention were served on the detenu on 8-1-2000 itself. In the grounds of detention, it is stated that since the year 1979, the petitioner has been engaging himself in criminal activities and has created reign of terror in the minds of peace-loving and law-abiding people. The grounds of detention cite 51 past offences from the year 1978 to 12-1-1999. In the past history of the detenu, it is further stated that he was detained on 14-4-1975 under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 and was released from the said detention on completion of two years on 14-4-1977. Even after release, the detenu continued to indulge in the commission of violent and desperate acts and thereby continued to create terror in the minds of people. Then four other criminal cases of the years 1974 to 1976 are cited as also the fact that the detenu was externed under section 57(a)(i) of the Bombay Police Act from Nagpur City for a period of two years by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, C.I.D., Nagpur vide order dated 7-3-1978 which was served on the detenu on 15-3-1978. The petitioner was again detained under the National Security Act by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur vide order dated 18th October, 1981 and was released after one year on 17-10-1982. The petitioner was once again detained under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 by Commissioner of Police vide order dated 20-11-1983, but he was ordered to be released by the Advisory Board on 23-12-1983. The petitioner was again detained under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur vide order dated 1-5-1992 and the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the detention of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court and the detenu was released by the Supreme Court on 30-4-1993.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The detention order then cites one extortion case against the petitioner registered under Crime No. 418/99 under sections 386, 323, 506 read with sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in which the detenu was first granted interim bail and subsequently the interim bail was confirmed. The prosecution relies on this criminal case as also gist of four in camera statements of witnesses 'A' to 'D'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The detention is challenged on various grounds and we shall deal with the said grounds which have been urged before us, one-by-one.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has first of all urged before us that the detenu was not informed by the Detaining Authority that he could make representation to the Detaining Authority within 12 days of the order and after placing reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sunil Sadashiv Ghate v. State of Maharashtra and others, Cri. Writ Petition No. 272 of 99 reported in : 2000(5)BomCR827 , which has been confirmed by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Shankar Acharya : 2000CriLJ3939 , it has been urged before us that on account of non-communication of the same, the right of making effective representation under Article 22(5) of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> has been affected. We may point out that in this case the argument advanced by the learned Advocate for petitioner does not arise at all since the detention order dated 20-12-1999 had been served on the petitioner only on 8-1-2000 and prior to that, the Government had already approved the detention order on 28-12-1999. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the first submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The next submission advanced by the learned Advocate for petitioner is that the past history and the instances quoted in the detention order have influenced the Detaining Authority for the purpose of passing the detention order. In this respect, the contention of respondent No. 1 is that the past history and the instances given upto para 10 of the Detention Order have not been taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority, but the said instances have been quoted in the detention order only to show the detenu's inclinations/tendencies and propensities towards committing criminal offences prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He has drawn our attention to the fact that this is specifically stated in the detention order in paragraphs 13 and 16 that the subjective satisfaction has been arrived at on the basis of paragraph 11 and four in-camera statements alone. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Apex Court in Fitrat Raza Khan v. State of U.P. and others : 1982CriLJ338 has pointed out that past conduct or antecedent history of a person can appropriately by taken into account in making a detention order and it is usually from prior events showing tendencies or inclinations of a man that an inference can be drawn whether he is likely, in the future, to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Apex Court in Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India and others : 1991CriLJ3291 had laid down that when the Detaining Authority has merely referred to certain incidents in the narration of events and has not relied upon them, the same will not cause any prejudice to the detenu in making a effective representation. Whether in a given case the Detaining Authority has casually or passingly referred or relied upon such instances would depend on the facts and the grounds which is required to be examined by the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Apex Court has in Vashisht Narain Karwaria v. Union of India and others A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1272 laid down that submissions which are extraneous touching the character of the detenu though not referred to in the grounds of detention, might have influenced the mind of the Detaining Authority to some extent one way or other in reaching the subjective satisfaction to take the decision of directing the detention of the detenu. It was observed that had these extraneous materials not been placed before the Detaining Authority, he might or might not have passed the detention order as a result of which it could be held that the detention order is suffering from the vice of consideration of extraneous materials vitiating the validity of the order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Besides this, it is now well settled by a series of judgments of the Apex Court, viz. Ajuay Dixit v. State of U.P and others : 1985CriLJ487 , Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar 1986 S.C.C. (Cri.) 481 and Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M.M. Mehta, Commissioner of Police and others : (1995)3SCC237 that old and stale incidents cannot be construed as justifiable ground for passing an order of detention. There should be proximity of such incidents and live link between the incidents and the detention order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In the light of the above proposition of law, the submissions made by the learned Advocate for petitioner and learned A.P.P. are required to be examined.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Though in para 2 of the English grounds of detention, it is stated that 51 offences referred therein are only instances of past history which have not been taken into consideration while formulating this order of detention, yet the Marathi translation of the detention order which was given to the detenu did not contain the fact that the said 51 offences referred to in para 2 of the detention order have not been considered while formulating the detention order. This part is totally absent in the Marathi translation which was furnished to the detenu. The contention put forward by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that it was a mere oversight, cannot be accepted, because the lapse which goes to the root of the matter cannot be lightly taken since it may affect the right of the petitioner for making effective representation under Article 22(5) of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. The lapse is serious enough for which the Detaining Authority should take action against the concerned Police Officer who has translated the English version of the grounds of detention wherein the relevant portion that 51 offences have not been considered while formulating the detention order is missing from the Marathi translation which was served on the detenu. It is now well settled that the detenu must be served with the detention order in the language known by the detenu and in case the translation of relevant documents or part of document in the language known by the detenu is not furnished, it vitiates the detention order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Be that as it may, in respect of the past history which is enumerated in paragraphs 3 to 10, it is no where stated in the said paragraphs specifically that the same have not been taken into consideration though, in paragraphs 13 and 16 reference relating to reliance placed for the purpose of subjective satisfaction is restricted only to paragraph 11 and four in-camera statements. The tenor of the detention order does suggest that this past history has, in fact, influenced the Detaining Authority in the decision-making process for the purpose of the detention order. The detention order repeatedly states that detenu has created reign of terror in the minds of people. All these instances, even otherwise, have neither proximity nor live link for the purpose of detention. In addition, we would like to point out that many of the instances of criminal offences which have been referred to in para 2 and para 4 of the detention order must have been disposed of and if anyone of those matters had ended in favour of the detenu, then obviously the same could not be referred even to show course of conduct since acquittal obliterates the offence itself. Though various criminal offences were listed in para 2 and para 4 of the detention order, yet it appears that no material was placed before the Detaining Authority as to what was the final outcome of the said cases. In respect of the convictions which are referred to in para 4, learned A.P.P. could produce only two of them and two others could not be produced even after sufficient time was granted. Non-supply of this information as to the final outcome of the said cases has also vitiated the detention order since, even the past history of the petitioner had not been correctly placed before the Detaining Authority with the up-to-date information of the outcome of the said cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Apex Court in Dharamdas Shamlal Aggarwal v. Police Commissioner & others, : 1989CriLJ1130 has laid down that order of detention would stand vitiated if the fact of acquittal of two of the cases mentioned in the table appended to the grounds of detention are not placed before the Detaining Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Anil v. State of Maharashtra 2000(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 154 : 2000(II) C.C.R. 139, and Sunil Bhagat v. State of Maharashtra and others, Criminal Writ Petition No. 262/99 have in a similar situation, taken similar view and we have no reason, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to take a different view of the matter. Thus, it appears that satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is influenced by the material of which copies were not furnished to the petitioner which has affected the right of the petitioner to make effective representation. The instances referred to in paras 2 to 10 have thus crept into the formation of subjective satisfaction, thereby vitiating the detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Even inspite of the above conclusions, we would still examine the instances which have been relied upon for the purpose of formulating opinion for the detention of the detenu. The prosecution relies upon a case of extortion registered under Crime No. 418/99 under sections 386, 323, 506 read with sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. In this case, certain documents which are said to have been got executed by the detenu with force were executed on 15-10-1997 and the First Information Report in respect of the incident was filed on 15-10-1999. In respect of this incident, the detenu was ordered to be released on bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Initially, interim bail was granted on 6-11-1999 which was confirmed vide order dated 26-11-1999. It is pertinent to note that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge took into account and rightly so, the delay in filing the complaint and also the fact that the dispute appeared to be of civil nature. Thus, in the light of observations of competent judicial authorities Crime No. 418/99 could not be used for the purpose of detention of the detenu. Besides this criminal case, we are left with four in camera statements. The in camera statement of witness 'A' pertains to an incident of 1994 which has no proximate or live link with the detention of the detenu. in camera statement of witness 'B' does not give the date or even the year of incident and likewise the in camera statement 'D' also does not give the year of the incident though the same is said to have happened in the month of August on the 'Rakshabandhan Day'. Therefore, these in camera statements suffer from the same vice that there is no proximity or live link of these instances with the order of detention. We are, therefore, left with only one instance, viz. in camera statement of the witness 'C' which pertains to the threat given by the detenu to a worker who was working for his brother Anil for the purpose of Vidhan Sabha election. This incident can, by no stretch of imagination, be considered as an incident of public order, but it is an incident against an individual which pertains to law and order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In view of the above, none of the instances, viz. Crime No. 418/99 under sections 386, 323, 506 read with section 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and four in camera statements on which the prosecution has relied, make out a case for detention on the ground of adversely affecting the maintenance of public order. The detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For the aforesaid reasons, the detention order dated 20-12-1999 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside and it is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu Harishchandra Madhavrao Dhawade is, therefore, ordered to be released forthwith in case he is not required in any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(5)BomCR443',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'O.P. Bali, Commissioner of Police and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '363325'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kamala W/O Harishchandra Dhawade Vs. O.P. Bali, Commissioner of Police and anr. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'section 10',
		(int) 1 => 'section 3',
		(int) 2 => 'section 57(a)(i',
		(int) 3 => 'the National Security Act',
		(int) 4 => 'the National Security Act',
		(int) 5 => 'the National Security Act',
		(int) 6 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 7 => 'Article 22(5',
		(int) 8 => 'Article 22(5',
		(int) 9 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 10 => 'section 34',
		(int) 11 => 'the Indian Penal Code'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'R.K. Batta',
		(int) 1 => 'the Advisory Board',
		(int) 2 => 'the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords',
		(int) 3 => 'Bootleggers, Drug Offenders',
		(int) 4 => 'The Advisory Board',
		(int) 5 => 'Government',
		(int) 6 => 'the Commissioner of Police',
		(int) 7 => 'Home Department (Special',
		(int) 8 => 'DDS',
		(int) 9 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 10 => 'the Maintenance of Internal Security Act',
		(int) 11 => 'the Bombay Police Act',
		(int) 12 => 'C.I.D.',
		(int) 13 => 'Nagpur',
		(int) 14 => 'the Commissioner of Police',
		(int) 15 => 'Nagpur',
		(int) 16 => 'the Advisory Board',
		(int) 17 => 'the Commissioner of Police',
		(int) 18 => 'Nagpur',
		(int) 19 => 'Court',
		(int) 20 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 21 => 'Learned Advocate',
		(int) 22 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 23 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 24 => 'Court',
		(int) 25 => 'the Apex Court',
		(int) 26 => 'State',
		(int) 27 => 'Government',
		(int) 28 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 29 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 30 => 'The Apex Court',
		(int) 31 => 'U.P.',
		(int) 32 => 'The Apex Court',
		(int) 33 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 34 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 35 => 'The Apex Court',
		(int) 36 => 'Union of India',
		(int) 37 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 38 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 39 => 'the Apex Court',
		(int) 40 => 'State of U.P',
		(int) 41 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 42 => 'Marathi',
		(int) 43 => 'Marathi',
		(int) 44 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 45 => 'Marathi',
		(int) 46 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 47 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 48 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 49 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 50 => 'The Apex Court',
		(int) 51 => 'Dharamdas',
		(int) 52 => 'Police Commissioner &',
		(int) 53 => 'Court',
		(int) 54 => 'Criminal Writ Petition',
		(int) 55 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 56 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 57 => 'Vidhan Sabha'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 2 => 'Fitrat',
		(int) 3 => 'English'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '20-12-1999',
		(int) 1 => '1981',
		(int) 2 => '22-12-1999',
		(int) 3 => '19th November, 1999',
		(int) 4 => '28-12-1999',
		(int) 5 => 'the year 1979',
		(int) 6 => 'the year 1978',
		(int) 7 => '1971',
		(int) 8 => 'two years',
		(int) 9 => 'the years 1974 to 1976',
		(int) 10 => 'a period of',
		(int) 11 => 'two years',
		(int) 12 => '18th October, 1981',
		(int) 13 => 'one year',
		(int) 14 => '1980',
		(int) 15 => '20-11-1983',
		(int) 16 => '23-12-1983',
		(int) 17 => '1980',
		(int) 18 => '12 days',
		(int) 19 => '20-12-1999',
		(int) 20 => '28-12-1999',
		(int) 21 => '1999',
		(int) 22 => '1272',
		(int) 23 => '1986',
		(int) 24 => '6-11-1999',
		(int) 25 => '418/99',
		(int) 26 => '1994',
		(int) 27 => 'the year',
		(int) 28 => 'the year of the',
		(int) 29 => 'the month of August',
		(int) 30 => '20-12-1999'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '8',
		(int) 1 => '17',
		(int) 2 => '21',
		(int) 3 => '1',
		(int) 4 => '8',
		(int) 5 => '51',
		(int) 6 => '12',
		(int) 7 => '14',
		(int) 8 => '14',
		(int) 9 => 'four',
		(int) 10 => '7-3-1978',
		(int) 11 => '15-3-1978',
		(int) 12 => '17-10-1982',
		(int) 13 => '1',
		(int) 14 => '30-4-1993.3',
		(int) 15 => 'one',
		(int) 16 => '323',
		(int) 17 => '506',
		(int) 18 => '34',
		(int) 19 => '120',
		(int) 20 => 'four',
		(int) 21 => 'one',
		(int) 22 => '272',
		(int) 23 => '99',
		(int) 24 => '2000(5)BomCR827',
		(int) 25 => '2000CriLJ3939',
		(int) 26 => '1',
		(int) 27 => '10',
		(int) 28 => '13',
		(int) 29 => '16',
		(int) 30 => '11',
		(int) 31 => 'four',
		(int) 32 => '1982CriLJ338',
		(int) 33 => '1991CriLJ3291',
		(int) 34 => 'one',
		(int) 35 => '1985CriLJ487',
		(int) 36 => '481',
		(int) 37 => '1995)3SCC237',
		(int) 38 => '2',
		(int) 39 => '51',
		(int) 40 => '51',
		(int) 41 => '2',
		(int) 42 => '51',
		(int) 43 => '3 to 10',
		(int) 44 => '13',
		(int) 45 => '16',
		(int) 46 => '11',
		(int) 47 => 'four',
		(int) 48 => '2',
		(int) 49 => '4',
		(int) 50 => '2',
		(int) 51 => '4',
		(int) 52 => '4',
		(int) 53 => 'only two',
		(int) 54 => 'two',
		(int) 55 => '1989CriLJ1130',
		(int) 56 => 'two',
		(int) 57 => 'Two',
		(int) 58 => '154',
		(int) 59 => '2000(II',
		(int) 60 => '139',
		(int) 61 => '262/99',
		(int) 62 => '2 to 10',
		(int) 63 => '323',
		(int) 64 => '506',
		(int) 65 => '34',
		(int) 66 => '120',
		(int) 67 => '15-10-1997',
		(int) 68 => '15-10-1999',
		(int) 69 => '26-11-1999',
		(int) 70 => 'four',
		(int) 71 => 'only one',
		(int) 72 => '323',
		(int) 73 => '506',
		(int) 74 => '120',
		(int) 75 => 'four'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Government Order',
		(int) 1 => 'Sadashiv Ghate v. State',
		(int) 2 => 'Cri',
		(int) 3 => 'Shankar Acharya',
		(int) 4 => 'Khan v. State',
		(int) 5 => 'Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union',
		(int) 6 => 'Ajuay Dixit',
		(int) 7 => 'Kumar Singh',
		(int) 8 => 'Jabbarmiya Shaikh',
		(int) 9 => 'M.M. Mehta',
		(int) 10 => 'Addl',
		(int) 11 => 'Shamlal Aggarwal',
		(int) 12 => 'Sunil Bhagat v. State',
		(int) 13 => 'Addl',
		(int) 14 => 'Nagpur',
		(int) 15 => 'Addl',
		(int) 16 => 'Anil',
		(int) 17 => 'Harishchandra Madhavrao Dhawade'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Nagpur City',
		(int) 1 => 'Sunil',
		(int) 2 => 'Vashisht',
		(int) 3 => 'Karwaria',
		(int) 4 => 'A.I.R.',
		(int) 5 => 'S.C.',
		(int) 6 => 'S.C.C.',
		(int) 7 => 'Cri.',
		(int) 8 => 'Anil v. State',
		(int) 9 => 'C.R.',
		(int) 10 => 'C.C.R.'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => '386',
		(int) 1 => '386',
		(int) 2 => '386'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first',
		(int) 1 => 'first',
		(int) 2 => 'first'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Constitution of India',
		(int) 1 => 'the Constitution of India'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => '8-1-2000'
	),
	'LANGUAGE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'English'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '363325',
		'acts' => 'Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 - Sections 3(1); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 22(5)',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Writ Petition No. 149 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Kamala W/O Harishchandra Dhawade',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kamala W/O Harishchandra Dhawade Vs. O.P. Bali, Commissioner of Police and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - detention Order - Section 3 (1) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 and Article 22 (5) of Constitution of India - detention Order challenged on various grounds - detenue to be served detention Order in language known by him - non compliance with such procedure renders detention Order as vitiated - translation of Order furnished to detenue does not contain all grounds - past history of detenue relied upon by detaining authority to arrive at conclusion - no grounds made out proving acts of detenue as prejudicial to maintenance of public order - detention Order liable to be set aside.


 - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  10. Besides this, it is now well settled by a series of judgments of the Apex Court, viz. It is now well settled that the detenu must be served with the detention order in the language known by the detenu and in case the translation of relevant documents or part of document in the language known by the detenu is not furnished, it vitiates the detention order. In addition, we would like to point out that many of the instances of criminal offences which have been referred to in para 2 and para 4 of the detention order must have been disposed of and if anyone of those matters had ended in favour of the detenu, then obviously the same could not be referred even to show course of conduct since acquittal obliterates the offence itself.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'M.R. Daga, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.B. Yengal, A.P.P.',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-09-30',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'R.K. Batta and ;P.S. Brahme, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.K. Batta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The wife of the detenu has filed this petition seeking to quash and set aside detention order dated 20-12-1999 which was served on the detenu on 8-1-2000. Reference was made to the Advisory Board under section 10 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short, the said 'Act') on 17-1-2000. The Advisory Board gave its opinion on 22-12-1999 and the Government confirmed the order of detention on 21-2-2000.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The detention order was issued by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur in exercise of power conferred under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act read with Government Order, Home Department (Special), No. DDS. 1399/4/SPL-3 (B) dated 19th November, 1999. The same was approved by the State Government on 28-12-1999. The detention order and the grounds of detention were served on the detenu on 8-1-2000 itself. In the grounds of detention, it is stated that since the year 1979, the petitioner has been engaging himself in criminal activities and has created reign of terror in the minds of peace-loving and law-abiding people. The grounds of detention cite 51 past offences from the year 1978 to 12-1-1999. In the past history of the detenu, it is further stated that he was detained on 14-4-1975 under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 and was released from the said detention on completion of two years on 14-4-1977. Even after release, the detenu continued to indulge in the commission of violent and desperate acts and thereby continued to create terror in the minds of people. Then four other criminal cases of the years 1974 to 1976 are cited as also the fact that the detenu was externed under section 57(a)(i) of the Bombay Police Act from Nagpur City for a period of two years by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, C.I.D., Nagpur vide order dated 7-3-1978 which was served on the detenu on 15-3-1978. The petitioner was again detained under the National Security Act by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur vide order dated 18th October, 1981 and was released after one year on 17-10-1982. The petitioner was once again detained under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 by Commissioner of Police vide order dated 20-11-1983, but he was ordered to be released by the Advisory Board on 23-12-1983. The petitioner was again detained under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur vide order dated 1-5-1992 and the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the detention of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court and the detenu was released by the Supreme Court on 30-4-1993.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The detention order then cites one extortion case against the petitioner registered under Crime No. 418/99 under sections 386, 323, 506 read with sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in which the detenu was first granted interim bail and subsequently the interim bail was confirmed. The prosecution relies on this criminal case as also gist of four in camera statements of witnesses 'A' to 'D'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The detention is challenged on various grounds and we shall deal with the said grounds which have been urged before us, one-by-one.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has first of all urged before us that the detenu was not informed by the Detaining Authority that he could make representation to the Detaining Authority within 12 days of the order and after placing reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sunil Sadashiv Ghate v. State of Maharashtra and others, Cri. Writ Petition No. 272 of 99 reported in : 2000(5)BomCR827 , which has been confirmed by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Shankar Acharya : 2000CriLJ3939 , it has been urged before us that on account of non-communication of the same, the right of making effective representation under Article 22(5) of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> has been affected. We may point out that in this case the argument advanced by the learned Advocate for petitioner does not arise at all since the detention order dated 20-12-1999 had been served on the petitioner only on 8-1-2000 and prior to that, the Government had already approved the detention order on 28-12-1999. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the first submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The next submission advanced by the learned Advocate for petitioner is that the past history and the instances quoted in the detention order have influenced the Detaining Authority for the purpose of passing the detention order. In this respect, the contention of respondent No. 1 is that the past history and the instances given upto para 10 of the Detention Order have not been taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority, but the said instances have been quoted in the detention order only to show the detenu's inclinations/tendencies and propensities towards committing criminal offences prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He has drawn our attention to the fact that this is specifically stated in the detention order in paragraphs 13 and 16 that the subjective satisfaction has been arrived at on the basis of paragraph 11 and four in-camera statements alone. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Apex Court in Fitrat Raza Khan v. State of U.P. and others : 1982CriLJ338 has pointed out that past conduct or antecedent history of a person can appropriately by taken into account in making a detention order and it is usually from prior events showing tendencies or inclinations of a man that an inference can be drawn whether he is likely, in the future, to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Apex Court in Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India and others : 1991CriLJ3291 had laid down that when the Detaining Authority has merely referred to certain incidents in the narration of events and has not relied upon them, the same will not cause any prejudice to the detenu in making a effective representation. Whether in a given case the Detaining Authority has casually or passingly referred or relied upon such instances would depend on the facts and the grounds which is required to be examined by the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Apex Court has in Vashisht Narain Karwaria v. Union of India and others A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1272 laid down that submissions which are extraneous touching the character of the detenu though not referred to in the grounds of detention, might have influenced the mind of the Detaining Authority to some extent one way or other in reaching the subjective satisfaction to take the decision of directing the detention of the detenu. It was observed that had these extraneous materials not been placed before the Detaining Authority, he might or might not have passed the detention order as a result of which it could be held that the detention order is suffering from the vice of consideration of extraneous materials vitiating the validity of the order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Besides this, it is now well settled by a series of judgments of the Apex Court, viz. Ajuay Dixit v. State of U.P and others : 1985CriLJ487 , Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar 1986 S.C.C. (Cri.) 481 and Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M.M. Mehta, Commissioner of Police and others : (1995)3SCC237 that old and stale incidents cannot be construed as justifiable ground for passing an order of detention. There should be proximity of such incidents and live link between the incidents and the detention order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In the light of the above proposition of law, the submissions made by the learned Advocate for petitioner and learned A.P.P. are required to be examined.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Though in para 2 of the English grounds of detention, it is stated that 51 offences referred therein are only instances of past history which have not been taken into consideration while formulating this order of detention, yet the Marathi translation of the detention order which was given to the detenu did not contain the fact that the said 51 offences referred to in para 2 of the detention order have not been considered while formulating the detention order. This part is totally absent in the Marathi translation which was furnished to the detenu. The contention put forward by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that it was a mere oversight, cannot be accepted, because the lapse which goes to the root of the matter cannot be lightly taken since it may affect the right of the petitioner for making effective representation under Article 22(5) of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. The lapse is serious enough for which the Detaining Authority should take action against the concerned Police Officer who has translated the English version of the grounds of detention wherein the relevant portion that 51 offences have not been considered while formulating the detention order is missing from the Marathi translation which was served on the detenu. It is now well settled that the detenu must be served with the detention order in the language known by the detenu and in case the translation of relevant documents or part of document in the language known by the detenu is not furnished, it vitiates the detention order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Be that as it may, in respect of the past history which is enumerated in paragraphs 3 to 10, it is no where stated in the said paragraphs specifically that the same have not been taken into consideration though, in paragraphs 13 and 16 reference relating to reliance placed for the purpose of subjective satisfaction is restricted only to paragraph 11 and four in-camera statements. The tenor of the detention order does suggest that this past history has, in fact, influenced the Detaining Authority in the decision-making process for the purpose of the detention order. The detention order repeatedly states that detenu has created reign of terror in the minds of people. All these instances, even otherwise, have neither proximity nor live link for the purpose of detention. In addition, we would like to point out that many of the instances of criminal offences which have been referred to in para 2 and para 4 of the detention order must have been disposed of and if anyone of those matters had ended in favour of the detenu, then obviously the same could not be referred even to show course of conduct since acquittal obliterates the offence itself. Though various criminal offences were listed in para 2 and para 4 of the detention order, yet it appears that no material was placed before the Detaining Authority as to what was the final outcome of the said cases. In respect of the convictions which are referred to in para 4, learned A.P.P. could produce only two of them and two others could not be produced even after sufficient time was granted. Non-supply of this information as to the final outcome of the said cases has also vitiated the detention order since, even the past history of the petitioner had not been correctly placed before the Detaining Authority with the up-to-date information of the outcome of the said cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Apex Court in Dharamdas Shamlal Aggarwal v. Police Commissioner & others, : 1989CriLJ1130 has laid down that order of detention would stand vitiated if the fact of acquittal of two of the cases mentioned in the table appended to the grounds of detention are not placed before the Detaining Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Anil v. State of Maharashtra 2000(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 154 : 2000(II) C.C.R. 139, and Sunil Bhagat v. State of Maharashtra and others, Criminal Writ Petition No. 262/99 have in a similar situation, taken similar view and we have no reason, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to take a different view of the matter. Thus, it appears that satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is influenced by the material of which copies were not furnished to the petitioner which has affected the right of the petitioner to make effective representation. The instances referred to in paras 2 to 10 have thus crept into the formation of subjective satisfaction, thereby vitiating the detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Even inspite of the above conclusions, we would still examine the instances which have been relied upon for the purpose of formulating opinion for the detention of the detenu. The prosecution relies upon a case of extortion registered under Crime No. 418/99 under sections 386, 323, 506 read with sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. In this case, certain documents which are said to have been got executed by the detenu with force were executed on 15-10-1997 and the First Information Report in respect of the incident was filed on 15-10-1999. In respect of this incident, the detenu was ordered to be released on bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Initially, interim bail was granted on 6-11-1999 which was confirmed vide order dated 26-11-1999. It is pertinent to note that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge took into account and rightly so, the delay in filing the complaint and also the fact that the dispute appeared to be of civil nature. Thus, in the light of observations of competent judicial authorities Crime No. 418/99 could not be used for the purpose of detention of the detenu. Besides this criminal case, we are left with four in camera statements. The in camera statement of witness 'A' pertains to an incident of 1994 which has no proximate or live link with the detention of the detenu. in camera statement of witness 'B' does not give the date or even the year of incident and likewise the in camera statement 'D' also does not give the year of the incident though the same is said to have happened in the month of August on the 'Rakshabandhan Day'. Therefore, these in camera statements suffer from the same vice that there is no proximity or live link of these instances with the order of detention. We are, therefore, left with only one instance, viz. in camera statement of the witness 'C' which pertains to the threat given by the detenu to a worker who was working for his brother Anil for the purpose of Vidhan Sabha election. This incident can, by no stretch of imagination, be considered as an incident of public order, but it is an incident against an individual which pertains to law and order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In view of the above, none of the instances, viz. Crime No. 418/99 under sections 386, 323, 506 read with section 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and four in camera statements on which the prosecution has relied, make out a case for detention on the ground of adversely affecting the maintenance of public order. The detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For the aforesaid reasons, the detention order dated 20-12-1999 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside and it is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu Harishchandra Madhavrao Dhawade is, therefore, ordered to be released forthwith in case he is not required in any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(5)BomCR443',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'O.P. Bali, Commissioner of Police and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '363325'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kamala W/O Harishchandra Dhawade Vs. O.P. Bali, Commissioner of Police and anr. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'section 10',
			(int) 1 => 'section 3',
			(int) 2 => 'section 57(a)(i',
			(int) 3 => 'the National Security Act',
			(int) 4 => 'the National Security Act',
			(int) 5 => 'the National Security Act',
			(int) 6 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 7 => 'Article 22(5',
			(int) 8 => 'Article 22(5',
			(int) 9 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 10 => 'section 34',
			(int) 11 => 'the Indian Penal Code'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'R.K. Batta',
			(int) 1 => 'the Advisory Board',
			(int) 2 => 'the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords',
			(int) 3 => 'Bootleggers, Drug Offenders',
			(int) 4 => 'The Advisory Board',
			(int) 5 => 'Government',
			(int) 6 => 'the Commissioner of Police',
			(int) 7 => 'Home Department (Special',
			(int) 8 => 'DDS',
			(int) 9 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 10 => 'the Maintenance of Internal Security Act',
			(int) 11 => 'the Bombay Police Act',
			(int) 12 => 'C.I.D.',
			(int) 13 => 'Nagpur',
			(int) 14 => 'the Commissioner of Police',
			(int) 15 => 'Nagpur',
			(int) 16 => 'the Advisory Board',
			(int) 17 => 'the Commissioner of Police',
			(int) 18 => 'Nagpur',
			(int) 19 => 'Court',
			(int) 20 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 21 => 'Learned Advocate',
			(int) 22 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 23 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 24 => 'Court',
			(int) 25 => 'the Apex Court',
			(int) 26 => 'State',
			(int) 27 => 'Government',
			(int) 28 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 29 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 30 => 'The Apex Court',
			(int) 31 => 'U.P.',
			(int) 32 => 'The Apex Court',
			(int) 33 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 34 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 35 => 'The Apex Court',
			(int) 36 => 'Union of India',
			(int) 37 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 38 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 39 => 'the Apex Court',
			(int) 40 => 'State of U.P',
			(int) 41 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 42 => 'Marathi',
			(int) 43 => 'Marathi',
			(int) 44 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 45 => 'Marathi',
			(int) 46 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 47 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 48 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 49 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 50 => 'The Apex Court',
			(int) 51 => 'Dharamdas',
			(int) 52 => 'Police Commissioner &',
			(int) 53 => 'Court',
			(int) 54 => 'Criminal Writ Petition',
			(int) 55 => 'the Detaining Authority',
			(int) 56 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 57 => 'Vidhan Sabha'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 2 => 'Fitrat',
			(int) 3 => 'English'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '20-12-1999',
			(int) 1 => '1981',
			(int) 2 => '22-12-1999',
			(int) 3 => '19th November, 1999',
			(int) 4 => '28-12-1999',
			(int) 5 => 'the year 1979',
			(int) 6 => 'the year 1978',
			(int) 7 => '1971',
			(int) 8 => 'two years',
			(int) 9 => 'the years 1974 to 1976',
			(int) 10 => 'a period of',
			(int) 11 => 'two years',
			(int) 12 => '18th October, 1981',
			(int) 13 => 'one year',
			(int) 14 => '1980',
			(int) 15 => '20-11-1983',
			(int) 16 => '23-12-1983',
			(int) 17 => '1980',
			(int) 18 => '12 days',
			(int) 19 => '20-12-1999',
			(int) 20 => '28-12-1999',
			(int) 21 => '1999',
			(int) 22 => '1272',
			(int) 23 => '1986',
			(int) 24 => '6-11-1999',
			(int) 25 => '418/99',
			(int) 26 => '1994',
			(int) 27 => 'the year',
			(int) 28 => 'the year of the',
			(int) 29 => 'the month of August',
			(int) 30 => '20-12-1999'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '8',
			(int) 1 => '17',
			(int) 2 => '21',
			(int) 3 => '1',
			(int) 4 => '8',
			(int) 5 => '51',
			(int) 6 => '12',
			(int) 7 => '14',
			(int) 8 => '14',
			(int) 9 => 'four',
			(int) 10 => '7-3-1978',
			(int) 11 => '15-3-1978',
			(int) 12 => '17-10-1982',
			(int) 13 => '1',
			(int) 14 => '30-4-1993.3',
			(int) 15 => 'one',
			(int) 16 => '323',
			(int) 17 => '506',
			(int) 18 => '34',
			(int) 19 => '120',
			(int) 20 => 'four',
			(int) 21 => 'one',
			(int) 22 => '272',
			(int) 23 => '99',
			(int) 24 => '2000(5)BomCR827',
			(int) 25 => '2000CriLJ3939',
			(int) 26 => '1',
			(int) 27 => '10',
			(int) 28 => '13',
			(int) 29 => '16',
			(int) 30 => '11',
			(int) 31 => 'four',
			(int) 32 => '1982CriLJ338',
			(int) 33 => '1991CriLJ3291',
			(int) 34 => 'one',
			(int) 35 => '1985CriLJ487',
			(int) 36 => '481',
			(int) 37 => '1995)3SCC237',
			(int) 38 => '2',
			(int) 39 => '51',
			(int) 40 => '51',
			(int) 41 => '2',
			(int) 42 => '51',
			(int) 43 => '3 to 10',
			(int) 44 => '13',
			(int) 45 => '16',
			(int) 46 => '11',
			(int) 47 => 'four',
			(int) 48 => '2',
			(int) 49 => '4',
			(int) 50 => '2',
			(int) 51 => '4',
			(int) 52 => '4',
			(int) 53 => 'only two',
			(int) 54 => 'two',
			(int) 55 => '1989CriLJ1130',
			(int) 56 => 'two',
			(int) 57 => 'Two',
			(int) 58 => '154',
			(int) 59 => '2000(II',
			(int) 60 => '139',
			(int) 61 => '262/99',
			(int) 62 => '2 to 10',
			(int) 63 => '323',
			(int) 64 => '506',
			(int) 65 => '34',
			(int) 66 => '120',
			(int) 67 => '15-10-1997',
			(int) 68 => '15-10-1999',
			(int) 69 => '26-11-1999',
			(int) 70 => 'four',
			(int) 71 => 'only one',
			(int) 72 => '323',
			(int) 73 => '506',
			(int) 74 => '120',
			(int) 75 => 'four'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Government Order',
			(int) 1 => 'Sadashiv Ghate v. State',
			(int) 2 => 'Cri',
			(int) 3 => 'Shankar Acharya',
			(int) 4 => 'Khan v. State',
			(int) 5 => 'Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union',
			(int) 6 => 'Ajuay Dixit',
			(int) 7 => 'Kumar Singh',
			(int) 8 => 'Jabbarmiya Shaikh',
			(int) 9 => 'M.M. Mehta',
			(int) 10 => 'Addl',
			(int) 11 => 'Shamlal Aggarwal',
			(int) 12 => 'Sunil Bhagat v. State',
			(int) 13 => 'Addl',
			(int) 14 => 'Nagpur',
			(int) 15 => 'Addl',
			(int) 16 => 'Anil',
			(int) 17 => 'Harishchandra Madhavrao Dhawade'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Nagpur City',
			(int) 1 => 'Sunil',
			(int) 2 => 'Vashisht',
			(int) 3 => 'Karwaria',
			(int) 4 => 'A.I.R.',
			(int) 5 => 'S.C.',
			(int) 6 => 'S.C.C.',
			(int) 7 => 'Cri.',
			(int) 8 => 'Anil v. State',
			(int) 9 => 'C.R.',
			(int) 10 => 'C.C.R.'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => '386',
			(int) 1 => '386',
			(int) 2 => '386'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first',
			(int) 1 => 'first',
			(int) 2 => 'first'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Constitution of India',
			(int) 1 => 'the Constitution of India'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => '8-1-2000'
		),
		'LANGUAGE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'English'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '363325',
			'acts' => 'Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 - Sections 3(1); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 22(5)',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Writ Petition No. 149 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Kamala W/O Harishchandra Dhawade',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kamala W/O Harishchandra Dhawade Vs. O.P. Bali, Commissioner of Police and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - detention Order - Section 3 (1) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 and Article 22 (5) of Constitution of India - detention Order challenged on various grounds - detenue to be served detention Order in language known by him - non compliance with such procedure renders detention Order as vitiated - translation of Order furnished to detenue does not contain all grounds - past history of detenue relied upon by detaining authority to arrive at conclusion - no grounds made out proving acts of detenue as prejudicial to maintenance of public order - detention Order liable to be set aside.


 - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  10. Besides this, it is now well settled by a series of judgments of the Apex Court, viz. It is now well settled that the detenu must be served with the detention order in the language known by the detenu and in case the translation of relevant documents or part of document in the language known by the detenu is not furnished, it vitiates the detention order. In addition, we would like to point out that many of the instances of criminal offences which have been referred to in para 2 and para 4 of the detention order must have been disposed of and if anyone of those matters had ended in favour of the detenu, then obviously the same could not be referred even to show course of conduct since acquittal obliterates the offence itself.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'M.R. Daga, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.B. Yengal, A.P.P.',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-09-30',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'R.K. Batta and ;P.S. Brahme, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.K. Batta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The wife of the detenu has filed this petition seeking to quash and set aside detention order dated 20-12-1999 which was served on the detenu on 8-1-2000. Reference was made to the Advisory Board under section 10 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short, the said 'Act') on 17-1-2000. The Advisory Board gave its opinion on 22-12-1999 and the Government confirmed the order of detention on 21-2-2000.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The detention order was issued by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur in exercise of power conferred under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act read with Government Order, Home Department (Special), No. DDS. 1399/4/SPL-3 (B) dated 19th November, 1999. The same was approved by the State Government on 28-12-1999. The detention order and the grounds of detention were served on the detenu on 8-1-2000 itself. In the grounds of detention, it is stated that since the year 1979, the petitioner has been engaging himself in criminal activities and has created reign of terror in the minds of peace-loving and law-abiding people. The grounds of detention cite 51 past offences from the year 1978 to 12-1-1999. In the past history of the detenu, it is further stated that he was detained on 14-4-1975 under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 and was released from the said detention on completion of two years on 14-4-1977. Even after release, the detenu continued to indulge in the commission of violent and desperate acts and thereby continued to create terror in the minds of people. Then four other criminal cases of the years 1974 to 1976 are cited as also the fact that the detenu was externed under section 57(a)(i) of the Bombay Police Act from Nagpur City for a period of two years by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, C.I.D., Nagpur vide order dated 7-3-1978 which was served on the detenu on 15-3-1978. The petitioner was again detained under the National Security Act by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur vide order dated 18th October, 1981 and was released after one year on 17-10-1982. The petitioner was once again detained under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 by Commissioner of Police vide order dated 20-11-1983, but he was ordered to be released by the Advisory Board on 23-12-1983. The petitioner was again detained under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur vide order dated 1-5-1992 and the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the detention of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court and the detenu was released by the Supreme Court on 30-4-1993.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The detention order then cites one extortion case against the petitioner registered under Crime No. 418/99 under sections 386, 323, 506 read with sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in which the detenu was first granted interim bail and subsequently the interim bail was confirmed. The prosecution relies on this criminal case as also gist of four in camera statements of witnesses 'A' to 'D'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The detention is challenged on various grounds and we shall deal with the said grounds which have been urged before us, one-by-one.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has first of all urged before us that the detenu was not informed by the Detaining Authority that he could make representation to the Detaining Authority within 12 days of the order and after placing reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sunil Sadashiv Ghate v. State of Maharashtra and others, Cri. Writ Petition No. 272 of 99 reported in : 2000(5)BomCR827 , which has been confirmed by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Shankar Acharya : 2000CriLJ3939 , it has been urged before us that on account of non-communication of the same, the right of making effective representation under Article 22(5) of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> has been affected. We may point out that in this case the argument advanced by the learned Advocate for petitioner does not arise at all since the detention order dated 20-12-1999 had been served on the petitioner only on 8-1-2000 and prior to that, the Government had already approved the detention order on 28-12-1999. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the first submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The next submission advanced by the learned Advocate for petitioner is that the past history and the instances quoted in the detention order have influenced the Detaining Authority for the purpose of passing the detention order. In this respect, the contention of respondent No. 1 is that the past history and the instances given upto para 10 of the Detention Order have not been taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority, but the said instances have been quoted in the detention order only to show the detenu's inclinations/tendencies and propensities towards committing criminal offences prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He has drawn our attention to the fact that this is specifically stated in the detention order in paragraphs 13 and 16 that the subjective satisfaction has been arrived at on the basis of paragraph 11 and four in-camera statements alone. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Apex Court in Fitrat Raza Khan v. State of U.P. and others : 1982CriLJ338 has pointed out that past conduct or antecedent history of a person can appropriately by taken into account in making a detention order and it is usually from prior events showing tendencies or inclinations of a man that an inference can be drawn whether he is likely, in the future, to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Apex Court in Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India and others : 1991CriLJ3291 had laid down that when the Detaining Authority has merely referred to certain incidents in the narration of events and has not relied upon them, the same will not cause any prejudice to the detenu in making a effective representation. Whether in a given case the Detaining Authority has casually or passingly referred or relied upon such instances would depend on the facts and the grounds which is required to be examined by the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Apex Court has in Vashisht Narain Karwaria v. Union of India and others A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1272 laid down that submissions which are extraneous touching the character of the detenu though not referred to in the grounds of detention, might have influenced the mind of the Detaining Authority to some extent one way or other in reaching the subjective satisfaction to take the decision of directing the detention of the detenu. It was observed that had these extraneous materials not been placed before the Detaining Authority, he might or might not have passed the detention order as a result of which it could be held that the detention order is suffering from the vice of consideration of extraneous materials vitiating the validity of the order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Besides this, it is now well settled by a series of judgments of the Apex Court, viz. Ajuay Dixit v. State of U.P and others : 1985CriLJ487 , Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar 1986 S.C.C. (Cri.) 481 and Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M.M. Mehta, Commissioner of Police and others : (1995)3SCC237 that old and stale incidents cannot be construed as justifiable ground for passing an order of detention. There should be proximity of such incidents and live link between the incidents and the detention order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In the light of the above proposition of law, the submissions made by the learned Advocate for petitioner and learned A.P.P. are required to be examined.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Though in para 2 of the English grounds of detention, it is stated that 51 offences referred therein are only instances of past history which have not been taken into consideration while formulating this order of detention, yet the Marathi translation of the detention order which was given to the detenu did not contain the fact that the said 51 offences referred to in para 2 of the detention order have not been considered while formulating the detention order. This part is totally absent in the Marathi translation which was furnished to the detenu. The contention put forward by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that it was a mere oversight, cannot be accepted, because the lapse which goes to the root of the matter cannot be lightly taken since it may affect the right of the petitioner for making effective representation under Article 22(5) of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. The lapse is serious enough for which the Detaining Authority should take action against the concerned Police Officer who has translated the English version of the grounds of detention wherein the relevant portion that 51 offences have not been considered while formulating the detention order is missing from the Marathi translation which was served on the detenu. It is now well settled that the detenu must be served with the detention order in the language known by the detenu and in case the translation of relevant documents or part of document in the language known by the detenu is not furnished, it vitiates the detention order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Be that as it may, in respect of the past history which is enumerated in paragraphs 3 to 10, it is no where stated in the said paragraphs specifically that the same have not been taken into consideration though, in paragraphs 13 and 16 reference relating to reliance placed for the purpose of subjective satisfaction is restricted only to paragraph 11 and four in-camera statements. The tenor of the detention order does suggest that this past history has, in fact, influenced the Detaining Authority in the decision-making process for the purpose of the detention order. The detention order repeatedly states that detenu has created reign of terror in the minds of people. All these instances, even otherwise, have neither proximity nor live link for the purpose of detention. In addition, we would like to point out that many of the instances of criminal offences which have been referred to in para 2 and para 4 of the detention order must have been disposed of and if anyone of those matters had ended in favour of the detenu, then obviously the same could not be referred even to show course of conduct since acquittal obliterates the offence itself. Though various criminal offences were listed in para 2 and para 4 of the detention order, yet it appears that no material was placed before the Detaining Authority as to what was the final outcome of the said cases. In respect of the convictions which are referred to in para 4, learned A.P.P. could produce only two of them and two others could not be produced even after sufficient time was granted. Non-supply of this information as to the final outcome of the said cases has also vitiated the detention order since, even the past history of the petitioner had not been correctly placed before the Detaining Authority with the up-to-date information of the outcome of the said cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Apex Court in Dharamdas Shamlal Aggarwal v. Police Commissioner & others, : 1989CriLJ1130 has laid down that order of detention would stand vitiated if the fact of acquittal of two of the cases mentioned in the table appended to the grounds of detention are not placed before the Detaining Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Anil v. State of Maharashtra 2000(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 154 : 2000(II) C.C.R. 139, and Sunil Bhagat v. State of Maharashtra and others, Criminal Writ Petition No. 262/99 have in a similar situation, taken similar view and we have no reason, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to take a different view of the matter. Thus, it appears that satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is influenced by the material of which copies were not furnished to the petitioner which has affected the right of the petitioner to make effective representation. The instances referred to in paras 2 to 10 have thus crept into the formation of subjective satisfaction, thereby vitiating the detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Even inspite of the above conclusions, we would still examine the instances which have been relied upon for the purpose of formulating opinion for the detention of the detenu. The prosecution relies upon a case of extortion registered under Crime No. 418/99 under sections 386, 323, 506 read with sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. In this case, certain documents which are said to have been got executed by the detenu with force were executed on 15-10-1997 and the First Information Report in respect of the incident was filed on 15-10-1999. In respect of this incident, the detenu was ordered to be released on bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Initially, interim bail was granted on 6-11-1999 which was confirmed vide order dated 26-11-1999. It is pertinent to note that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge took into account and rightly so, the delay in filing the complaint and also the fact that the dispute appeared to be of civil nature. Thus, in the light of observations of competent judicial authorities Crime No. 418/99 could not be used for the purpose of detention of the detenu. Besides this criminal case, we are left with four in camera statements. The in camera statement of witness 'A' pertains to an incident of 1994 which has no proximate or live link with the detention of the detenu. in camera statement of witness 'B' does not give the date or even the year of incident and likewise the in camera statement 'D' also does not give the year of the incident though the same is said to have happened in the month of August on the 'Rakshabandhan Day'. Therefore, these in camera statements suffer from the same vice that there is no proximity or live link of these instances with the order of detention. We are, therefore, left with only one instance, viz. in camera statement of the witness 'C' which pertains to the threat given by the detenu to a worker who was working for his brother Anil for the purpose of Vidhan Sabha election. This incident can, by no stretch of imagination, be considered as an incident of public order, but it is an incident against an individual which pertains to law and order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In view of the above, none of the instances, viz. Crime No. 418/99 under sections 386, 323, 506 read with section 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and four in camera statements on which the prosecution has relied, make out a case for detention on the ground of adversely affecting the maintenance of public order. The detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For the aforesaid reasons, the detention order dated 20-12-1999 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside and it is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu Harishchandra Madhavrao Dhawade is, therefore, ordered to be released forthwith in case he is not required in any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(5)BomCR443',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'O.P. Bali, Commissioner of Police and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '363325'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kamala W/O Harishchandra Dhawade Vs. O.P. Bali, Commissioner of Police and anr. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'section 10',
		(int) 1 => 'section 3',
		(int) 2 => 'section 57(a)(i',
		(int) 3 => 'the National Security Act',
		(int) 4 => 'the National Security Act',
		(int) 5 => 'the National Security Act',
		(int) 6 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 7 => 'Article 22(5',
		(int) 8 => 'Article 22(5',
		(int) 9 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 10 => 'section 34',
		(int) 11 => 'the Indian Penal Code'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'R.K. Batta',
		(int) 1 => 'the Advisory Board',
		(int) 2 => 'the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords',
		(int) 3 => 'Bootleggers, Drug Offenders',
		(int) 4 => 'The Advisory Board',
		(int) 5 => 'Government',
		(int) 6 => 'the Commissioner of Police',
		(int) 7 => 'Home Department (Special',
		(int) 8 => 'DDS',
		(int) 9 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 10 => 'the Maintenance of Internal Security Act',
		(int) 11 => 'the Bombay Police Act',
		(int) 12 => 'C.I.D.',
		(int) 13 => 'Nagpur',
		(int) 14 => 'the Commissioner of Police',
		(int) 15 => 'Nagpur',
		(int) 16 => 'the Advisory Board',
		(int) 17 => 'the Commissioner of Police',
		(int) 18 => 'Nagpur',
		(int) 19 => 'Court',
		(int) 20 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 21 => 'Learned Advocate',
		(int) 22 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 23 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 24 => 'Court',
		(int) 25 => 'the Apex Court',
		(int) 26 => 'State',
		(int) 27 => 'Government',
		(int) 28 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 29 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 30 => 'The Apex Court',
		(int) 31 => 'U.P.',
		(int) 32 => 'The Apex Court',
		(int) 33 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 34 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 35 => 'The Apex Court',
		(int) 36 => 'Union of India',
		(int) 37 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 38 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 39 => 'the Apex Court',
		(int) 40 => 'State of U.P',
		(int) 41 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 42 => 'Marathi',
		(int) 43 => 'Marathi',
		(int) 44 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 45 => 'Marathi',
		(int) 46 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 47 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 48 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 49 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 50 => 'The Apex Court',
		(int) 51 => 'Dharamdas',
		(int) 52 => 'Police Commissioner &',
		(int) 53 => 'Court',
		(int) 54 => 'Criminal Writ Petition',
		(int) 55 => 'the Detaining Authority',
		(int) 56 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 57 => 'Vidhan Sabha'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 2 => 'Fitrat',
		(int) 3 => 'English'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '20-12-1999',
		(int) 1 => '1981',
		(int) 2 => '22-12-1999',
		(int) 3 => '19th November, 1999',
		(int) 4 => '28-12-1999',
		(int) 5 => 'the year 1979',
		(int) 6 => 'the year 1978',
		(int) 7 => '1971',
		(int) 8 => 'two years',
		(int) 9 => 'the years 1974 to 1976',
		(int) 10 => 'a period of',
		(int) 11 => 'two years',
		(int) 12 => '18th October, 1981',
		(int) 13 => 'one year',
		(int) 14 => '1980',
		(int) 15 => '20-11-1983',
		(int) 16 => '23-12-1983',
		(int) 17 => '1980',
		(int) 18 => '12 days',
		(int) 19 => '20-12-1999',
		(int) 20 => '28-12-1999',
		(int) 21 => '1999',
		(int) 22 => '1272',
		(int) 23 => '1986',
		(int) 24 => '6-11-1999',
		(int) 25 => '418/99',
		(int) 26 => '1994',
		(int) 27 => 'the year',
		(int) 28 => 'the year of the',
		(int) 29 => 'the month of August',
		(int) 30 => '20-12-1999'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '8',
		(int) 1 => '17',
		(int) 2 => '21',
		(int) 3 => '1',
		(int) 4 => '8',
		(int) 5 => '51',
		(int) 6 => '12',
		(int) 7 => '14',
		(int) 8 => '14',
		(int) 9 => 'four',
		(int) 10 => '7-3-1978',
		(int) 11 => '15-3-1978',
		(int) 12 => '17-10-1982',
		(int) 13 => '1',
		(int) 14 => '30-4-1993.3',
		(int) 15 => 'one',
		(int) 16 => '323',
		(int) 17 => '506',
		(int) 18 => '34',
		(int) 19 => '120',
		(int) 20 => 'four',
		(int) 21 => 'one',
		(int) 22 => '272',
		(int) 23 => '99',
		(int) 24 => '2000(5)BomCR827',
		(int) 25 => '2000CriLJ3939',
		(int) 26 => '1',
		(int) 27 => '10',
		(int) 28 => '13',
		(int) 29 => '16',
		(int) 30 => '11',
		(int) 31 => 'four',
		(int) 32 => '1982CriLJ338',
		(int) 33 => '1991CriLJ3291',
		(int) 34 => 'one',
		(int) 35 => '1985CriLJ487',
		(int) 36 => '481',
		(int) 37 => '1995)3SCC237',
		(int) 38 => '2',
		(int) 39 => '51',
		(int) 40 => '51',
		(int) 41 => '2',
		(int) 42 => '51',
		(int) 43 => '3 to 10',
		(int) 44 => '13',
		(int) 45 => '16',
		(int) 46 => '11',
		(int) 47 => 'four',
		(int) 48 => '2',
		(int) 49 => '4',
		(int) 50 => '2',
		(int) 51 => '4',
		(int) 52 => '4',
		(int) 53 => 'only two',
		(int) 54 => 'two',
		(int) 55 => '1989CriLJ1130',
		(int) 56 => 'two',
		(int) 57 => 'Two',
		(int) 58 => '154',
		(int) 59 => '2000(II',
		(int) 60 => '139',
		(int) 61 => '262/99',
		(int) 62 => '2 to 10',
		(int) 63 => '323',
		(int) 64 => '506',
		(int) 65 => '34',
		(int) 66 => '120',
		(int) 67 => '15-10-1997',
		(int) 68 => '15-10-1999',
		(int) 69 => '26-11-1999',
		(int) 70 => 'four',
		(int) 71 => 'only one',
		(int) 72 => '323',
		(int) 73 => '506',
		(int) 74 => '120',
		(int) 75 => 'four'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Government Order',
		(int) 1 => 'Sadashiv Ghate v. State',
		(int) 2 => 'Cri',
		(int) 3 => 'Shankar Acharya',
		(int) 4 => 'Khan v. State',
		(int) 5 => 'Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union',
		(int) 6 => 'Ajuay Dixit',
		(int) 7 => 'Kumar Singh',
		(int) 8 => 'Jabbarmiya Shaikh',
		(int) 9 => 'M.M. Mehta',
		(int) 10 => 'Addl',
		(int) 11 => 'Shamlal Aggarwal',
		(int) 12 => 'Sunil Bhagat v. State',
		(int) 13 => 'Addl',
		(int) 14 => 'Nagpur',
		(int) 15 => 'Addl',
		(int) 16 => 'Anil',
		(int) 17 => 'Harishchandra Madhavrao Dhawade'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Nagpur City',
		(int) 1 => 'Sunil',
		(int) 2 => 'Vashisht',
		(int) 3 => 'Karwaria',
		(int) 4 => 'A.I.R.',
		(int) 5 => 'S.C.',
		(int) 6 => 'S.C.C.',
		(int) 7 => 'Cri.',
		(int) 8 => 'Anil v. State',
		(int) 9 => 'C.R.',
		(int) 10 => 'C.C.R.'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => '386',
		(int) 1 => '386',
		(int) 2 => '386'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first',
		(int) 1 => 'first',
		(int) 2 => 'first'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Constitution of India',
		(int) 1 => 'the Constitution of India'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => '8-1-2000'
	),
	'LANGUAGE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'English'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '363325',
		'acts' => 'Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 - Sections 3(1); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 22(5)',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Writ Petition No. 149 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Kamala W/O Harishchandra Dhawade',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kamala W/O Harishchandra Dhawade Vs. O.P. Bali, Commissioner of Police and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - detention Order - Section 3 (1) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 and Article 22 (5) of Constitution of India - detention Order challenged on various grounds - detenue to be served detention Order in language known by him - non compliance with such procedure renders detention Order as vitiated - translation of Order furnished to detenue does not contain all grounds - past history of detenue relied upon by detaining authority to arrive at conclusion - no grounds made out proving acts of detenue as prejudicial to maintenance of public order - detention Order liable to be set aside.


 - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  10. Besides this, it is now well settled by a series of judgments of the Apex Court, viz. It is now well settled that the detenu must be served with the detention order in the language known by the detenu and in case the translation of relevant documents or part of document in the language known by the detenu is not furnished, it vitiates the detention order. In addition, we would like to point out that many of the instances of criminal offences which have been referred to in para 2 and para 4 of the detention order must have been disposed of and if anyone of those matters had ended in favour of the detenu, then obviously the same could not be referred even to show course of conduct since acquittal obliterates the offence itself.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'M.R. Daga, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.B. Yengal, A.P.P.',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-09-30',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'R.K. Batta and ;P.S. Brahme, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.K. Batta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The wife of the detenu has filed this petition seeking to quash and set aside detention order dated 20-12-1999 which was served on the detenu on 8-1-2000. Reference was made to the Advisory Board under section 10 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short, the said 'Act') on 17-1-2000. The Advisory Board gave its opinion on 22-12-1999 and the Government confirmed the order of detention on 21-2-2000.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The detention order was issued by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur in exercise of power conferred under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act read with Government Order, Home Department (Special), No. DDS. 1399/4/SPL-3 (B) dated 19th November, 1999. The same was approved by the State Government on 28-12-1999. The detention order and the grounds of detention were served on the detenu on 8-1-2000 itself. In the grounds of detention, it is stated that since the year 1979, the petitioner has been engaging himself in criminal activities and has created reign of terror in the minds of peace-loving and law-abiding people. The grounds of detention cite 51 past offences from the year 1978 to 12-1-1999. In the past history of the detenu, it is further stated that he was detained on 14-4-1975 under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 and was released from the said detention on completion of two years on 14-4-1977. Even after release, the detenu continued to indulge in the commission of violent and desperate acts and thereby continued to create terror in the minds of people. Then four other criminal cases of the years 1974 to 1976 are cited as also the fact that the detenu was externed under section 57(a)(i) of the Bombay Police Act from Nagpur City for a period of two years by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, C.I.D., Nagpur vide order dated 7-3-1978 which was served on the detenu on 15-3-1978. The petitioner was again detained under the National Security Act by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur vide order dated 18th October, 1981 and was released after one year on 17-10-1982. The petitioner was once again detained under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 by Commissioner of Police vide order dated 20-11-1983, but he was ordered to be released by the Advisory Board on 23-12-1983. The petitioner was again detained under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur vide order dated 1-5-1992 and the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the detention of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court and the detenu was released by the Supreme Court on 30-4-1993.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The detention order then cites one extortion case against the petitioner registered under Crime No. 418/99 under sections 386, 323, 506 read with sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in which the detenu was first granted interim bail and subsequently the interim bail was confirmed. The prosecution relies on this criminal case as also gist of four in camera statements of witnesses 'A' to 'D'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The detention is challenged on various grounds and we shall deal with the said grounds which have been urged before us, one-by-one.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has first of all urged before us that the detenu was not informed by the Detaining Authority that he could make representation to the Detaining Authority within 12 days of the order and after placing reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sunil Sadashiv Ghate v. State of Maharashtra and others, Cri. Writ Petition No. 272 of 99 reported in : 2000(5)BomCR827 , which has been confirmed by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Shankar Acharya : 2000CriLJ3939 , it has been urged before us that on account of non-communication of the same, the right of making effective representation under Article 22(5) of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> has been affected. We may point out that in this case the argument advanced by the learned Advocate for petitioner does not arise at all since the detention order dated 20-12-1999 had been served on the petitioner only on 8-1-2000 and prior to that, the Government had already approved the detention order on 28-12-1999. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the first submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The next submission advanced by the learned Advocate for petitioner is that the past history and the instances quoted in the detention order have influenced the Detaining Authority for the purpose of passing the detention order. In this respect, the contention of respondent No. 1 is that the past history and the instances given upto para 10 of the Detention Order have not been taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority, but the said instances have been quoted in the detention order only to show the detenu's inclinations/tendencies and propensities towards committing criminal offences prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He has drawn our attention to the fact that this is specifically stated in the detention order in paragraphs 13 and 16 that the subjective satisfaction has been arrived at on the basis of paragraph 11 and four in-camera statements alone. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Apex Court in Fitrat Raza Khan v. State of U.P. and others : 1982CriLJ338 has pointed out that past conduct or antecedent history of a person can appropriately by taken into account in making a detention order and it is usually from prior events showing tendencies or inclinations of a man that an inference can be drawn whether he is likely, in the future, to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Apex Court in Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India and others : 1991CriLJ3291 had laid down that when the Detaining Authority has merely referred to certain incidents in the narration of events and has not relied upon them, the same will not cause any prejudice to the detenu in making a effective representation. Whether in a given case the Detaining Authority has casually or passingly referred or relied upon such instances would depend on the facts and the grounds which is required to be examined by the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Apex Court has in Vashisht Narain Karwaria v. Union of India and others A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1272 laid down that submissions which are extraneous touching the character of the detenu though not referred to in the grounds of detention, might have influenced the mind of the Detaining Authority to some extent one way or other in reaching the subjective satisfaction to take the decision of directing the detention of the detenu. It was observed that had these extraneous materials not been placed before the Detaining Authority, he might or might not have passed the detention order as a result of which it could be held that the detention order is suffering from the vice of consideration of extraneous materials vitiating the validity of the order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Besides this, it is now well settled by a series of judgments of the Apex Court, viz. Ajuay Dixit v. State of U.P and others : 1985CriLJ487 , Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar 1986 S.C.C. (Cri.) 481 and Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M.M. Mehta, Commissioner of Police and others : (1995)3SCC237 that old and stale incidents cannot be construed as justifiable ground for passing an order of detention. There should be proximity of such incidents and live link between the incidents and the detention order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In the light of the above proposition of law, the submissions made by the learned Advocate for petitioner and learned A.P.P. are required to be examined.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Though in para 2 of the English grounds of detention, it is stated that 51 offences referred therein are only instances of past history which have not been taken into consideration while formulating this order of detention, yet the Marathi translation of the detention order which was given to the detenu did not contain the fact that the said 51 offences referred to in para 2 of the detention order have not been considered while formulating the detention order. This part is totally absent in the Marathi translation which was furnished to the detenu. The contention put forward by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that it was a mere oversight, cannot be accepted, because the lapse which goes to the root of the matter cannot be lightly taken since it may affect the right of the petitioner for making effective representation under Article 22(5) of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. The lapse is serious enough for which the Detaining Authority should take action against the concerned Police Officer who has translated the English version of the grounds of detention wherein the relevant portion that 51 offences have not been considered while formulating the detention order is missing from the Marathi translation which was served on the detenu. It is now well settled that the detenu must be served with the detention order in the language known by the detenu and in case the translation of relevant documents or part of document in the language known by the detenu is not furnished, it vitiates the detention order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Be that as it may, in respect of the past history which is enumerated in paragraphs 3 to 10, it is no where stated in the said paragraphs specifically that the same have not been taken into consideration though, in paragraphs 13 and 16 reference relating to reliance placed for the purpose of subjective satisfaction is restricted only to paragraph 11 and four in-camera statements. The tenor of the detention order does suggest that this past history has, in fact, influenced the Detaining Authority in the decision-making process for the purpose of the detention order. The detention order repeatedly states that detenu has created reign of terror in the minds of people. All these instances, even otherwise, have neither proximity nor live link for the purpose of detention. In addition, we would like to point out that many of the instances of criminal offences which have been referred to in para 2 and para 4 of the detention order must have been disposed of and if anyone of those matters had ended in favour of the detenu, then obviously the same could not be referred even to show course of conduct since acquittal obliterates the offence itself. Though various criminal offences were listed in para 2 and para 4 of the detention order, yet it appears that no material was placed before the Detaining Authority as to what was the final outcome of the said cases. In respect of the convictions which are referred to in para 4, learned A.P.P. could produce only two of them and two others could not be produced even after sufficient time was granted. Non-supply of this information as to the final outcome of the said cases has also vitiated the detention order since, even the past history of the petitioner had not been correctly placed before the Detaining Authority with the up-to-date information of the outcome of the said cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Apex Court in Dharamdas Shamlal Aggarwal v. Police Commissioner & others, : 1989CriLJ1130 has laid down that order of detention would stand vitiated if the fact of acquittal of two of the cases mentioned in the table appended to the grounds of detention are not placed before the Detaining Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Anil v. State of Maharashtra 2000(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 154 : 2000(II) C.C.R. 139, and Sunil Bhagat v. State of Maharashtra and others, Criminal Writ Petition No. 262/99 have in a similar situation, taken similar view and we have no reason, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to take a different view of the matter. Thus, it appears that satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is influenced by the material of which copies were not furnished to the petitioner which has affected the right of the petitioner to make effective representation. The instances referred to in paras 2 to 10 have thus crept into the formation of subjective satisfaction, thereby vitiating the detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Even inspite of the above conclusions, we would still examine the instances which have been relied upon for the purpose of formulating opinion for the detention of the detenu. The prosecution relies upon a case of extortion registered under Crime No. 418/99 under sections 386, 323, 506 read with sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. In this case, certain documents which are said to have been got executed by the detenu with force were executed on 15-10-1997 and the First Information Report in respect of the incident was filed on 15-10-1999. In respect of this incident, the detenu was ordered to be released on bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Initially, interim bail was granted on 6-11-1999 which was confirmed vide order dated 26-11-1999. It is pertinent to note that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge took into account and rightly so, the delay in filing the complaint and also the fact that the dispute appeared to be of civil nature. Thus, in the light of observations of competent judicial authorities Crime No. 418/99 could not be used for the purpose of detention of the detenu. Besides this criminal case, we are left with four in camera statements. The in camera statement of witness 'A' pertains to an incident of 1994 which has no proximate or live link with the detention of the detenu. in camera statement of witness 'B' does not give the date or even the year of incident and likewise the in camera statement 'D' also does not give the year of the incident though the same is said to have happened in the month of August on the 'Rakshabandhan Day'. Therefore, these in camera statements suffer from the same vice that there is no proximity or live link of these instances with the order of detention. We are, therefore, left with only one instance, viz. in camera statement of the witness 'C' which pertains to the threat given by the detenu to a worker who was working for his brother Anil for the purpose of Vidhan Sabha election. This incident can, by no stretch of imagination, be considered as an incident of public order, but it is an incident against an individual which pertains to law and order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In view of the above, none of the instances, viz. Crime No. 418/99 under sections 386, 323, 506 read with section 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and four in camera statements on which the prosecution has relied, make out a case for detention on the ground of adversely affecting the maintenance of public order. The detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For the aforesaid reasons, the detention order dated 20-12-1999 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside and it is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu Harishchandra Madhavrao Dhawade is, therefore, ordered to be released forthwith in case he is not required in any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(5)BomCR443',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'O.P. Bali, Commissioner of Police and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '363325'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: section 10, section 3, section 57(a)(i, the National Security Act, the National Security Act, the National Security Act, the Indian Penal Code, Article 22(5, Article 22(5, the Indian Penal Code, section 34, the Indian Penal Code

ORG: R.K. Batta, the Advisory Board, the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, The Advisory Board, Government, the Commissioner of Police, Home Department (Special, DDS, the State Government, the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, the Bombay Police Act, C.I.D., Nagpur, the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, the Advisory Board, the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, Court, the Supreme Court, Learned Advocate, the Detaining Authority, the Detaining Authority, Court, the Apex Court, State, Government, the Detaining Authority, the Detaining Authority, The Apex Court, U.P., The Apex Court, the Detaining Authority, the Detaining Authority, The Apex Court, Union of India, the Detaining Authority, the Detaining Authority, the Apex Court, State of U.P, A.P.P., Marathi, Marathi, the Detaining Authority, Marathi, the Detaining Authority, the Detaining Authority, A.P.P., the Detaining Authority, The Apex Court, Dharamdas, Police Commissioner &, Court, Criminal Writ Petition, the Detaining Authority, the First Information Report, Vidhan Sabha

NORP: J.1, Maharashtra, Fitrat, English

DATE: 20-12-1999, 1981, 22-12-1999, 19th November, 1999, 28-12-1999, the year 1979, the year 1978, 1971, two years, the years 1974 to 1976, a period of, two years, 18th October, 1981, one year, 1980, 20-11-1983, 23-12-1983, 1980, 12 days, 20-12-1999, 28-12-1999, 1999, 1272, 1986, 6-11-1999, 418/99, 1994, the year, the year of the, the month of August, 20-12-1999

CARDINAL: 8, 17, 21, 1, 8, 51, 12, 14, 14, four, 7-3-1978, 15-3-1978, 17-10-1982, 1, 30-4-1993.3, one, 323, 506, 34, 120, four, one, 272, 99, 2000(5)BomCR827, 2000CriLJ3939, 1, 10, 13, 16, 11, four, 1982CriLJ338, 1991CriLJ3291, one, 1985CriLJ487, 481, 1995)3SCC237, 2, 51, 51, 2, 51, 3 to 10, 13, 16, 11, four, 2, 4, 2, 4, 4, only two, two, 1989CriLJ1130, two, Two, 154, 2000(II, 139, 262/99, 2 to 10, 323, 506, 34, 120, 15-10-1997, 15-10-1999, 26-11-1999, four, only one, 323, 506, 120, four

PERSON: Government Order, Sadashiv Ghate v. State, Cri, Shankar Acharya, Khan v. State, Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union, Ajuay Dixit, Kumar Singh, Jabbarmiya Shaikh, M.M. Mehta, Addl, Shamlal Aggarwal, Sunil Bhagat v. State, Addl, Nagpur, Addl, Anil, Harishchandra Madhavrao Dhawade

GPE: Nagpur City, Sunil, Vashisht, Karwaria, A.I.R., S.C., S.C.C., Cri., Anil v. State, C.R., C.C.R.

PRODUCT: 386, 386, 386

ORDINAL: first, first, first

WORK_OF_ART: the Constitution of India, the Constitution of India

TIME: 8-1-2000

LANGUAGE: English