ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, J. Seeking a direction upon the respondents to admit the petitioner in M. B. A. Course in Aligarh Muslim University pursuant to the selec tion list declared on 13- 7-1997, this writ petition was filed. 2. The petitioner has contended in the writ petition that he had taken degree of Bachelor of Science in Electrical En gineering in the examination of 1996 from Aligarh Muslim University and as a can didate for admission in the course of Master of Business Administration the petitioner appeared in Entrance Ex amination. A list of selected candidates was declared on 13-7-1997 wherein the name of the petitioner was duly included. On the date of admission when the petitioner contacted the office of the Proc tor of the University as well as the Depart ment concerned, the petitioner was in formed that his admission was not per mitted and, therefore, this writ petition was filed. The petitioner also filed a sup plementary affidavit. 3. The respondents filed a short counter-affidavit followed by a regular counter-affidavit and a supplementary counter-affidavit. The petitioner filed rejoinder-affidavit and the supplementary rejoinder-affidavit. 4. Heard Mr. J. J. Munir learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Gupta, learned Counsel for the respon dents. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that even after selection of the petitioner on the basis of his success in admission test, the respondents cannot refuse admis sion. It is stated that the respondents have improved their case from time to time and ultimately their objections are three-fold though none of such objections can be accepted. 6. It is stated that the first objection of the respondents is that when the petitioner was a student of Engineering Course in the University on an incident a first information report had been lodged and a criminal trial resulted implicating the petitioner. Though the respondents undoubtedly suspended the petitioner on 21-3-1994 from the University, such suspension was kept in abeyance by the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 4-4-1994. Thereafter the petitioner completed his course and passed B. Sc. , Engineering in the session 1995-96 and the first objec tion of the respondents in respect of the present admission is based on the said old incident although in the meantime criminal trial has been concluded acquit ting the petitioner completely. Thereafter the petitioner completed his course and passed B. Sc. , Engineering in the session 1995-96 and the first objec tion of the respondents in respect of the present admission is based on the said old incident although in the meantime criminal trial has been concluded acquit ting the petitioner completely. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that as the said suspension had been kept in abeyance and the petitioner completed his course peacefully and the criminal trial had also ended in acquittal, the old inci dent could not be relied on any further. 7. The second objection of the respondents against the admission of the petitioner is that while submitting the req uisite form for admission the petitioner made a false representation by striking out the statement requiring disclosure of the existing criminal case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that as admit tedly on that day the criminal trial was still pending, the petitioner had to strike out the said statement and such action of the petitioner did not amount to any suppres sion of facts but was only possible action as there was no space in the form for declar ing the particulars of the pending criminal case. 8. The third objection of the respon dents against the admission of the petitioner in M. B. A. Course is that the proctor reported several complains against the petitioner of serious nature during the period he was continuing studies in the Engineering Course. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that these complaints cannot be accepted by the Court as neither any document making such complaints is available nor any such complain was earlier disclosed by the University authorities. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the circumstances those complains are afterthoughts and fabricated materials. 9. Learned Counsel for the respon dents contended that the University authorities on a specific material suspended the petitioner on 21-3-1994 and this was on satisfaction on facts and only as the parties concerned entered into a compromise and the University wanted to take a humanitarian approach the petitioner had been allowed to complete the continuing course and this does not mean that the University authorities were not to consider those facts at the time of admission in respect of other subsequent course. 10. 10. With regard to the striking out the materials in the admission form it is stated that the same was a wrongful act on the part of the petitioner only with the inten tion of suppressing the truth as regards pendency of the criminal case. It is stated that the petitioner ought to have disclosed the particulars of the criminal case admit tedly then pending, 11. With regard to the other incidents of complains against the petitioner, the respondents have relied on the statements made in the affidavits as also the records produced at the time of hearing. 12. Learned Counsel for the respon dents relied on several case laws including the cases Syed Rashid Jalil v. Registrar, Aligarh Muslim University and another, Writ Petition No. 16392 of 1986, decided on 5- 1-1987; Vijai Kumar Sarswat v. Prin cipal, Meerut College, Meerut, Writ Petition No. 8851 of 1981, decided on 27-8-1981; Brijesh Kumar Pandey v. Lala Lajpat Rai Medical College, Meerut and others, reported in 1983 UPLBEC 153; Ram Swarup Singh Rathore v. Chandra Shekhar Azad University and others, reported in 1987 ALR 634; Mohd. Saleem Siddiqui v. Dr. K. B. Post Graduate Degree College Mirzapur and others, reported in 1996 AWC (2) 709; Dr. Devesh Maurya and another v. Principal, Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, reported in (1991); 1 UPLBEC 4391, Prof. Nafis Ahmad v. Aligarh Muslim University and others, reported in (1997) 2 UPLBEC 842 and State of Maharashtra and others v. Prabhu, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 481 and relying on such cases it is contended that in the facts of the case no interference should be made in respect of the right exercised by the respondents in refusing admission in the interest of the peaceful atmosphere in the University. 13. After considering the respective contentions of the parties and perusing the facts as also the law decided I find that in respect of the incident which took place in March 1994 a criminal trial had been started and the same has since ended in acquittal of the petitioner. It is also ad mitted that the petitioner had been al lowed to continue his course after the said incident and after initial suspension. In such circumstance, I am of the opinion that those incidents could not be relied on by the respondents for the purpose of refusing admission in the new course. 14. It is also ad mitted that the petitioner had been al lowed to continue his course after the said incident and after initial suspension. In such circumstance, I am of the opinion that those incidents could not be relied on by the respondents for the purpose of refusing admission in the new course. 14. With regard to striking out a part of the admission form, even if is not a serious offence but non- disclosure of the then pending original trial undoubtedly is a matter which could be considered by the University authorities particularly when the criminal trial related to an incident where on the University earlier took ac tion. Moreover, with regard to the com plains made against the petitioner from time to time records have been shown to this Court at the time of hearing. It is also found that the Proctor has submitted report which went against the petitioner, though allegation of bias has been made against the Proctor but it is admitted that no personal interest of the Proctor has been alleged. In the facts of the case and looking into the materials available, I do not find any reason for disbelieving the report of the Proctor. 15. Law in this connection has been decided in various cases as referred to by the respondents. In some of the said cases similar allegations against the concerned authorities of the University was also there but the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Syed Rashid Jalil (supra) had come to a conclusion as follows: "in our opinion, in case the University Authorities are of the opinion that the presence of a student is likely to create indiscipline in the University it cannot then be said that the exer cise of the powers by the Admission Committee in refusing admission to the petitioner is either arbitrary or mala fide. " Similar view had been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in other cases also. Applying the same laws I do not feel inclined to interfere on the present writ petition. 16. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .