{"id":169208,"date":"2009-12-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009"},"modified":"2017-12-07T19:54:44","modified_gmt":"2017-12-07T14:24:44","slug":"rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Rizwan vs Deputy Commissioner & District … on 4 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Rizwan vs Deputy Commissioner & District … on 4 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: V.Gopalagowda And B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
.. 2 H\n\nVVPHC FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE\nCONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE\nDETENTION OF SRI HANIF @ THI LI HANIF. ,._S\/O\nKHADAR BASHA BY ORDER OF' DETENTION IN EINCILQISH\n\nBEARING NO.MAGi1I\/CR\/ 121 \/2009- \u00a30 DATED 09.0'?\n\n[ANN-A} PASSED BY R} AND \n\nThis WPHC coming on for dictating Orders,  I\n\nday, NAGARATHNA, J, made the followigrlg:-\u00bb\n\nORDER@\n\nThe nephew of the detenu  11.x':l'IT}'I('I'.\"  \nThirthahalli Hanif, has tiled petitionvn\ufb01gbyggyfiway of\nhabeas corpus by cha1leiigi'ng  detention dated\n9.7.2009 {Annexure v-~ A]  ffelspondent and\nthe order  [d the approval\ngranted by   order dated 14.7.2009\n{Annexu}rve--(_3vIl_A   in the eye of law. The\nsaid order.__of dete_ntio1?I under section 3 of the\n\nKamataka Prevention ofbangerous Activities of Bootleggers,\n\n  \u20ac.OEff'enders, dainblers, Goondas, Immoral Tra\ufb01ic\n\n Grabbers Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred\n\nto as-.f_the  \n\n Aocrording to the petitioner, the grounds of detention\n\n  gllfilirnished to the detenu is in English language and also\n\n '*--.I:ser5ved in Kannada language which are produced as\n\n4:.'Annexures - B & B1 respectively; that the order of detention\n\n'\u00a7\n21 X,\n\nX'\n\n \n\n\n\nH 9 -\nbeen done in the instant case. It is also submitted that in\nthe Kannada version of the detention order it is mentioned,\n\n\"*2-we %E\u00a7:s\u00a2t:53\u20ac\u00e9e:u.,$  \u00e9\u00e9ssa\ufb01.\n\nV\n\nC:3\\;i_.'\u00a7;gJ{x;'t:a\">\ufb013: 'Zc0G?Q:'%}f;\"\u00a7C,Q,E}'%'EC9\u20ac'\"go\u00a3;'i?\"_pf\" it\n\nC.'\n\nBut, the said words are absent in the English vers_:i.on\"\u00bbof _\n\ndetention order and hence there is variance between.  two.__ i \n\nEither it is a case of there being two_vdetent7ionyo1*ders\"w.*L%hich;va it\n\ncannot be issued under the Act.__or    \ncontended that the Kannada translation of order\nof detention is at variance'}\u00ab.   in the\nwrit petition with regard to   documents\nin the bound     \u00ab\u00abrei.terated. There is\nreliance placed this court as well as\nthe Apelft   the.'yat'vious contentions raised\nby the learned  of the petitioner.\n\n13. Per contra, leamiaedtijidditional Advocate General has\n\n subrn-ittedeV.thatt the detaining authority has to consider oniy\n\n'the'  aya.ilable for passing of the detention order and\n\nnot revsulti-\"of; the cases which are referred to in the order\n\n .  'of deten\ufb01on; that the subjective satisfaction which has to be\n\n  at by the detaining authority within the meaning of\n\n ...Wsec\u00a7tion 3 of the Act cannot be questioned in a court of law\n\n\"brand that even if the result of the cases are in favpur of the\n\n\na.\/\"\n\n\n\n- 11 ..\n15. Annexure-A is the English version of the order of\n\ndetention which refers to section 312] of the Act and  in\n\norder to prevent the detenu from acting in any 'I_V1v.1\"a\"'L.3'_.ii1_eE1'..u\n\nprejudicial to the maintenance of public G_4I';(..le1'.,T'i'Z'' \"\n\nnecessary to make an order directinge him to  00\n\nAnnexure-A1 is Kannada version ofwtAne;'_\"'said ord'er'wrherei\ufb01.i..\n\nspecific reference has been madevto. the gambling  of\n\nthe detenu by stating as 1:'_ollows:y_____u\"\n\nAnnex.ure--C    perusal of the\nsame, it  n.ot:ed1f_.  iireamble the detaining\nauthority has  thegambiing activities of the detenu\nhas affected pL1blicv..or:der in the society and details\n\nof the; 'cases registered \"against the detenu in Davanagere\n\n 0\"town'i'a.reVg1ven.at s1.'i\"\\:\"c$s. 1 to 38.\n\n1006;  of the said details of the cases, it is\n\n'V noticed xthaththe cases referred to at Si. Nos. 1 to 26 were the\n\n V'  rriatter of an earlier detention order dated 22.5.2000\n\n questioned before this court in WP{HC} No.98 of\n\n2000. This court by order dated 28.8.2000 quashed the\n\n0. order of detention reserving liberty to the respondents to<\/pre>\n
pass a fresh order in accordance with law”. Be that as it<\/p>\n
.. 12 _
\nmay, while referring to these twenty six cases out of thirty<\/p>\n
eight cases, the detaining authority has nowhere indicated<\/p>\n
that there was an earlier order of detention which A’<\/p>\n
subject matter of chaiienge before this court waYgbac.k: V’<\/p>\n
year 2000. In this context, it would be\u00bbAof.re1evancie”to  if if<\/p>\n
the statement of objections filed <\/p>\n
State has tried to justify byv__v’s~tating’~  the:-gorder’; of
\ndetention in the instant case is  on  :lV\\._IAosv.:\u00a71 to 26
\ncases referred to in the  but  gases, details of
\nwhich are given andvwhich  cases at S1.<\/p>\n
Nos.27 to  orderhof det.ention,””thereby it would<\/p>\n
indicate that the:..Sb’tateV” up with regard to the
\nfirst twenty_ referred to in the order of<\/p>\n
detention. ‘  4’<\/p>\n
17. However; we eannotffaccept the justification sought to<\/p>\n
 be I1iadei.by stating fthatfit is only with regard to S1. Nos. 27<\/p>\n
to  cas’e\u00absj.that_ the order of detention has been made when<\/p>\n
therefis nvonapjiilication of mind by the detaining authority<\/p>\n
 “with regard to s1. Nos. 3. to 26 along with s1. Nos. 27 to 38.<\/p>\n
   at  the said material was to be the subject matter of<\/p>\n
 _.._””‘deter1tion in the instant case, then it would have been<\/p>\n
ffffaiecessary to refer to the earlier detention order which had<\/p>\n
been quashed by this court. It is also necessary to state that<\/p>\n
4*?\/i<\/p>\n
ox”\n<\/p>\n
“.13..\n<\/p>\n
the cases referred to at S1. Nos. 1 to 26 was referred to in the<\/p>\n
earlier detention order in the year 2000 and that libert;?v.*as<\/p>\n
reserved by this court. But for a period of nine  <\/p>\n
nothing had been done and when the second.:  of<\/p>\n
detention has been made impugned in the instant case, <\/p>\n
those very cases have been again referred to “WiAt}IOl’1t any 00<\/p>\n
indication regarding the previou-siiorderyhof
\nwe find is not just and proper.  A 1<\/p>\n
18. In this context,  tis’.t_’obb_’advert to two
\ndecisions of   to of ‘CHHAGAN
\nBHAGWAN   OTHERS’, reported
\nin AIR .t;”9a9i_”;t  case of ‘JAHANGIR
\n  ~ POLICE COMMISSIONER,<\/p>\n
AmuEDABA’n_VAND’  reported in AIR 1989 so<\/p>\n
 ‘the first.o_f___the decision referred to above, it is<\/p>\n
AhgstatedyVth.atawhe1*e_’the detaining authority while passing the<\/p>\n
second’ order. 00 detention has referred to the earlier<\/p>\n
–Vdetention”*V_order and the Judgment of the High Court<\/p>\n
0 it it 0 \ufb02quashingvvit, presumably for the purpose of showing that the<\/p>\n
gjdetennd inspite of the earlier detention order was continuing<\/p>\n
0  bootlegging activities and the detaining authority said<\/p>\n
it clearly in affidavit in reply, that he took into consideration<\/p>\n
the previous grounds of detention also for his conclusion<\/p>\n
ea<\/p>\n
_ 14 ..\n<\/p>\n
that the detenu was engaged in bootlegging activities since<\/p>\n
long thus, in other words, the detaining authority has <\/p>\n
into consideration the earlier grounds of detentionli\u00e9 <\/p>\n
grounds had been nulli\ufb01ed by the  <\/p>\n
subsequent detention order was vitiaatediionv the *gr’oui1d <\/p>\n
the detaining authority had taken i’nuto’–._consid.Teration  it<\/p>\n
grounds of earlier detention ordervialcng with_other
\nThe said decision is relevant in”‘as’. inthebinstant
\ncase, there is no referencelbtoivdetention order or
\nthe same beingiqulashediziby  as the liberty
\nbeing reservedlalnrd   has been allowed
\nto pass    and the impugned
\norder  we \ufb01nd that there is a non-\n<\/p>\n
application loi7_inindci1V thisaspect of the matter.<\/p>\n
” V’ ‘-1.9. ~.,_S’irnilarly, in thesecond decision referred to above, it is<\/p>\n
  order of detention cannot be made after<\/p>\n
consi_dering.”thei” previous grounds of detention when the<\/p>\n
 “same hasfbeen quashed by the court and if such grounds<\/p>\n
   into consideration while forming the subjective<\/p>\n
 ____”:’sati’;sfaction by the detaining authority in making the<\/p>\n
u”.detention order, the order of detention will be vitiated. It is<\/p>\n
of no consequence if the further fresh facts disclosed in the<\/p>\n
grounds of the impugned detention order have been<\/p>\n
ii,\u00bb<\/p>\n
_ 16 _
\nthat the cases referred to at S1. No.38 has also been quashed<\/p>\n
after passing the order of detention. On a consideration of ‘<\/p>\n
this material, we find that the detaining authority has<\/p>\n
applied its mind on a common and even basis to <\/p>\n
cases which is evident from the following statemerrts   _<\/p>\n
the grounds of detention.\n<\/p>\n
“I have gone through all these cases  it<\/p>\n
Sections of Karnataka Police Act;—_1963”:.in’der\u20ac V’  A T<\/p>\n
which you have been convicted seheral ttm-BS.’   <\/p>\n
“A perusal of all the above-._ir1ctdents= indicates
\nthat you are not amenable-“to. ‘thelU_rdtnaJ’y”La.LDs
\nof the land. ‘1’hu,s,’ct_fter appliccit\u00e9o_:i. mind to
\nthe facts of the case  “an_’a1.ysed.h_ above, I am
\nfully convinced that H1’_t_visv.necesVsary tofqletain you
\nunder the Act.,_ Arid hence,21*-havegpassed the
\ndetention:orC1%:r:”\n<\/p>\n
On a reading of thehsaid r’nafterial,_..– itxbecomes apparent that
\nthe casesllhaveheen “eo’r:.s’idered together and in our View the
\ncases cannotbe segr”egatedi’*-from each other and hence the<\/p>\n
provisions ofsection  Act cannot be made applicable<\/p>\n
 ‘ in  cased.” itv–is also necessary to note that while the<\/p>\n
 of d.eten’tio1i.speaks about thirty eight cases, the State<\/p>\n
initsreply i*s’j_i.risisting that it is only twelve cases at Si.No.<\/p>\n
C27 to “38suw.hich is the basis of detention. Out of the twelve<\/p>\n
it l{C:asels”\u00ab–..four cases were not brought to the notice of the<\/p>\n
 authority by the sponsoring authority in respect of<\/p>\n
u this court had quashed the complaints and in other<\/p>\n
33\u00bb<\/p>\n
a<\/p>\n
– 17 –\n<\/p>\n
cases there were acquittais or proceedings were dropped, we
\nfeel that the material which was placed before the detaining<\/p>\n
authority could not have led the detaining authority to arrive<\/p>\n
at a subjective satisfaction. In View of the <\/p>\n
detention order namely, the cases referred to at”A.’:S:1.i’,J:e…:VVi” it<\/p>\n
38 not being legally sustainable, the:-detentipon order is Vtobe<\/p>\n
heid as not Vaiid in the eye of law.\n<\/p>\n
22. In this context, it is necessa*ryRto_ refer’-tottthe decisions<\/p>\n
of the Apex Court mentiopried tie1o\u00a7i}v”W*hich\u00ab.were adyerted to<\/p>\n
by learned counselpfor thepppetitionerib<\/p>\n
Ea} ‘TULSHI minis avsi  =S.T;ATE OF WEST
\nBENGAIQ’,nprepor3i;ed  .1975 SC 638<\/p>\n
{b}  eisiariifiigp   STATE OF WEST
\nBENGAL’,  1974 SC 806<\/p>\n
[c} fMoHD’;”~.1mA,nmt*;ALi”tVKHAN Vs. STATE or WEST
\n~ ;BE1\\7GAL’, reported in AIR 1976 SC 734<\/p>\n
  _vhti*om the above reasons, we also \ufb01nd that the<\/p>\n
 the order of detention is not on par with<\/p>\n
t  the English version of the order of detention for the reasons<\/p>\n
 theu\u00e9ambling activity of the detenu is speci\ufb01cally<\/p>\n
 _’ment_ioned in the kannada version which is absent in the<\/p>\n
  English version and therefore there being a variance in the<\/p>\n
– 38 _
\ntwo. the order of detention has to be quashed on the ground<\/p>\n
that there is no effective communication in this regard.<\/p>\n
24. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the decision<\/p>\n
of this court passed in WPIHC] No.8 of 2006  _<\/p>\n
‘SMT. RENUKA vs. GOVERNMEN\ufb01l: or  ” ~ it <\/p>\n
disposed of on 12.6.2006 wherein  wasr\u00abAsvtated’A..that’ if<\/p>\n
considering the Kannada Version-of the order of as
\na translated order, the referenc\u00b0e~.:._V_made   was
\nmissing the main order’df’V1rhich  held to
\nbe a case where there  irifvvhthejvvidetention order
\nand hence the &qL11ashed.\u00ab:f’Tnetreasoning given in
\nthe said  to the facts of the
\nPresent   0 V.  <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
25. In the case  DHARNA ALIAS KOKA<\/p>\n
vs.    *0THERS’, reported in AIR 1990<\/p>\n
 ” \u00abSC  is alsoddsteded by the Apex Court that in order to<\/p>\n
“eoffectittei’ representation, the grounds must be clearly<\/p>\n
stated”dor othdejfxrd\ufb01se it would be a frustration of the rights of<\/p>\n
 _ tithe detenui<\/p>\n
I1<\/p>\n
 “…\u00bb;.i6n.  this context, it is also relevant to refer to the<\/p>\n
–..t.’.-detgisdion of the Apex Court in the case of ‘M18. TSERING<\/p>\n
‘f:1:>oLKAR Vs. Tfm ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY<\/p>\n
\u00bb’ _,#”\n<\/p>\n
.-I’\/’<\/p>\n
_ 19 _
\nOF DELHLI AND OTHERS’, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1192
\nwherein it is stated that in the matter of preventive<\/p>\n
detention, the test is not one of prejudice but one of strict<\/p>\n
compliance with the provisions of the Act and when ..<\/p>\n
failure to comply with the requirements, it becorhes  H<\/p>\n
to sustain the order.\n<\/p>\n
27. Learned Additional Advocate d’seeera’i, iiidwevef, <\/p>\n
relied upon certain decisions namely –<\/p>\n
[a} ‘PRAKASH  .1v\u00a7…’.com&IS’s1oNER
\nAND SECRETARY, G}()VERP}’1I:lE1_y’T. for -KERALA AND
\nOTHERS ‘, reported-i”r1″AiR mas (S1135?) ‘sec 144<\/p>\n
{b} ‘MRS.   –VsESf\u00a7AG1RI Vs. STATE or
\nKEIQIAV.A.n:;:p_ArJo9’ia:s~i2f,:ifeperted in (1982) 2 sec<\/p>\n
330 ~
\ns’r1:1:L~ .1-‘uses zimzziioon, SABHA AND OTHERS’.
\n.\u00bbi;epo1’ted in ‘2’4′;’J.R_W.\u00a5’93O so 1896<\/p>\n
(c) ‘GUJg1R4T’  LTD.,’ Vs. GUJARAT<\/p>\n
‘Veto the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the<\/p>\n
detaining authority cannot be questioned in a court of law.<\/p>\n
KWe agtreevttwith the said proposition, but in the instant case,<\/p>\n
  \ufb01n.d that the material which was placed before the<\/p>\n
 authority could not have led to the subjective<\/p>\n
tqysatisfaction. particuiariy, with regard to the reasons which<\/p>\n
-i\u00e9x<\/p>\n
N20,.\n<\/p>\n
we have assigned while considering in the eariier part of the<\/p>\n
order and the fact that the majority of cases referred to by<\/p>\n
the detaining authority, namely, S1. Nos. 1 to 24e.V\u00a7\u00a7\u00a2i-Q<\/p>\n
subject matter of detention order passed way  _<\/p>\n
year 2000 and which were quashed by this it <\/p>\n
liberty to pass a fresh order of detearitionoxbutey .0<\/p>\n
date of the impugned order i.e.;9,_f7.2009_,l”there,\u00bbhs:s <\/p>\n
action taken under the provisionstof  the
\nprovision clearly stipulates.  to preyent the
\ndetenu from acting in   to the
\nmaintenance  order,  v\u00a7fouid”be…:necessa1y to pass
\norder of deteilijtion.’  last nine years, the
\ndetaininigllautlrovrityli  action is also an
\nimportant. and V   yvhich we have taken into<\/p>\n
conside_r_ation’antl .eoupied”‘s\u00a7tIith the fact that the said cases<\/p>\n
‘dd’beingj’:eon.sidered ha1o’ng’wit11 the other cases, totally thirty<\/p>\n
  ;:a–..whole would mean that the said cases<\/p>\n
cannot be separated or segregated.\n<\/p>\n
 38. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of detention is<\/p>\n
 ._ ” Hence, the writ petition is allowed by quashing the<\/p>\n
 of detention bearing No.MAC\u00ab[1}\/CR\/121\/2009-10<\/p>\n
uulrdated 9.7.2009 [Annexure–AI the kannada Version of the<\/p>\n
order bearing No. No.MAG[1}\/CR\/121\/2009-10 dated<\/p>\n
-21-<\/span><\/p>\n
9.7.2009 [Annexure-~A1], both passed by the first respondent-‘–.._
\nand the order of approval bearing No. HD\/519\/ssr\/2<)(\u00a79\u00ab9f9'.j'–,:"-.
\ndated 14.7.2009 [AnneXure—-CI passed by the  <\/p>\n
respondent are aii quashed.\n<\/p>\n
29. The detenu is ordered to beset at  if isdivnzot
\nrequired in any other case. The op\u00e9zrettive pd1’tidn*V’:0f ‘:”;E1is
\norder shall be communicated zto “respondeniyy for<\/p>\n
compliance.\n<\/p>\n
 _  ‘<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Rizwan vs Deputy Commissioner & District … on 4 December, 2009 Author: V.Gopalagowda And B.V.Nagarathna .. 2 H VVPHC FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE DETENTION OF SRI HANIF @ THI LI HANIF. ,._S\/O KHADAR BASHA BY ORDER OF’ DETENTION IN EINCILQISH BEARING […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-169208","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRizwan vs Deputy Commissioner & District ... on 4 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rizwan vs Deputy Commissioner & District ... on 4 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-07T14:24:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rizwan vs Deputy Commissioner & District … on 4 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-07T14:24:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1751,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Rizwan vs Deputy Commissioner & District ... on 4 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-07T14:24:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rizwan vs Deputy Commissioner & District … on 4 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rizwan vs Deputy Commissioner & District ... on 4 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rizwan vs Deputy Commissioner & District ... on 4 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-07T14:24:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rizwan vs Deputy Commissioner & District … on 4 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-07T14:24:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009"},"wordCount":1751,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009","name":"Rizwan vs Deputy Commissioner & District ... on 4 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-07T14:24:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rizwan-vs-deputy-commissioner-district-on-4-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rizwan vs Deputy Commissioner & District … on 4 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169208","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=169208"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169208\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169208"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169208"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169208"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}