# Brij Nandan v. District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai and others - **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 423 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2002-04-15 - **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Petition No. 44581 of 2001 - **Bench:** M. Katju, Rakesh Tiwari - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brij-nandan-v-district-magistrate-jalaun-at-orai-and-others-39779 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Act 5 (3) 29 (f) (g) 33 and Statute 54 (i) (4) Constitution of India, Article 226- Education- Petitioner debarred from appearing in the Final Year Examination- due to shortage of attendance statute prescribed 75% attendance mandatory for Regular Student- vires of the Statute not challenged- Court declined to interfere. Held- Para 7 The Ordenance made by the University laying down objective test of 75% combined attendance for regular students in Engineering regular course of study does not require interference by this court. The pragmatic decision taken by respondents no. 2 and 3 debarring the petitioner on the basis of statutory ## Text 2 All] Brij Nandan Vs. District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai and others 423 5.For the reasons given above the petition is allowed. 5. Impugned detention order dated 24.4.2002 is quashed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith unless he is required in some other criminal or preventive detention case. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21 MAY, 2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 44581 of 2001 Brij Nandan ...Petitioner Versus District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Tejpal Sri Sukhendra Pal Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.N. Srivastava A.G.A. Constitution of India, Article 226 Detention order challenged- Petitioner envolving so many serious offences- creating terror by threatening common people- held- amounts not only disturbance of law and order but the Public Order has been disturbed. Held- Para 5 We are satisfied that the petitioner has disturbed public order and not merely law and order. The large number of serious cases against the petitioner show that he is a hardened criminal and creates terror in the public. Case law discussed. 2000(i) JIC (SC) 221 (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of detention dated 26.9.2001 passed under the National Security Act. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the grounds of detention shows that it is alleged therein that on 8.6.2001 the petitioner with his brother and associates came with guns and shot one Santosh Kumar on his chest due to which he fell down and died. This created terror and panic in the locality and people shut their houses and a case under section 302 IPC was registered. The said incident occurred in a congested locality, which created terror in the public, and public order was disturbed. 3. It is also alleged that on 3.5.2000 the petitioner shot at one Ramji when he had come to appear before the court and a case under section 307 IPC was registered against him. On 14.5.98 the petitioner had given shelter to some anti social elements who had guns and when the Police party arrived at the spot the petitioner and his four associates fired at the Police. The Police had recovered the petitioner's rifle. A case under section 307 IPC has also been registered in this connection. On 28.5.97 at 3.35 p.m. the petitioner and his associates shot dead one Shyam Sharma and a case under section 302/307 IPC has been registered in this connection. On 23.7.97 at 7.15 p.m. the petitioner attempted to kill one Yugal Kishore and Maharaj Singh and case under section 307 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002 424 IPC had been registered. Petitioner's gun licence was cancelled but he has not deposited his gun due to which a case under section 25/30 Arms Act has been registered. 4. Thus it is alleged that petitioner has committed several crimes and he is trying to obtain bail. It is also alleged that petitioner is getting Gunda Tax collected from the people in the locality. He has threatened the villagers that if anybody gave evidence against him the people will be burnt and will be killed. Hence the District Magistrate was satisfied that petitioner's activities are pre-judicial to public order. 5. We are satisfied that the petitioner has disturbed public order and not merely law and order. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the petitioner was in jail since 15.6.2001 and his bail application has been rejected by the court of sessions on 26.7.2001 as stated in paragraph 21 of the petition. Hence it is alleged that the detention order is illegal. In our judgment in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 38005 of 2001 Karesh Pal @ Billu v. District Magistrate decided on 25.1.2002 we have discussed this aspect of the matter and have held that even if a person is in jail a detention order can be passed. We have relied on the Supreme Court decision in Ahmad Nassar v. State Tamil Nadu 2000 (1) JIC (SC) 221 for the proposition that a valid detention can be passed even when the detenue has not applied for bail. For the reasons given above there is no force in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.4.2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE R.R. YADAV, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15450 of 2002 Mohd. Yaqub ...Petitioner Versus Vice Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and others ...Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.A. Khan Sri Mohd. Soud Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Dilip Gupta Sri R.S. Ram S.C. Aligarh Muslim University - Chapter 17 of Act 5 (3) 29 (f) (g) 33 and Statute 54 (i) (4) Constitution of India, Article 226- Education- Petitioner debarred from appearing in the Final Year Examination- due to shortage of attendance statute prescribed 75% attendance mandatory for Regular Student- vires of the Statute not challenged- Court declined to interfere. Held- Para 7 The Ordenance made by the University laying down objective test of 75% combined attendance for regular students in Engineering regular course of study does not require interference by this court. The pragmatic decision taken by respondents no. 2 and 3 debarring the petitioner on the basis of statutory