JUDGMENT Prakash D. Naik, J. - The Petitioner has invoked the power of Superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned orders dated 7th May, 2018, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nashik, under Section 5(5)(c) of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1960 ("the Act", for short). The short title of the Act is amended as "Maharashtra Prevention of Begging Act". 2. The Petitioner no.1 works towards creation of policies and programmes for homeless population and those who live at the margins of society in urban areas. The Petitioner no.1 aims to humanise existing institutions under this begging Prevention Law and work towards the rehabilitation of custodialised population living in beggars homes. The Petitioner nos. 2 to 30 represent 30 women and 19 children, who have been picked up by Nashik Police and were sentenced to detention at a certified institution in Chembur by impugned order dated 7th May, 2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nashik. 3. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 7th May, 2018 passed under Section 5 of the Bombay (Maharashtra) Prevention of Begging Act, 1960. According to the Petitioners, the learned Magistrate had wrongfully and arbitrarily declared Petitioner nos.2 to 30 as beggars and directed to be detained for one year to a certified institution at Chember, Mumbai. These women and the children, who are at young and sensitive age, were illegally picked up from the streets/place of work, at Nashik, on 7th May, 2018. According to the Petitioners, the women and children were arrested on the pretext that they are required to make Unique Identification Cards for them. Without informing them the reason for their arrest and without providing legal assistance to them as well as the hearing, they were sentenced to detention to a beggars home for a period of one year. It is contended that there is gross violation of principle of natural justice. Without offering the right of hearing and without following due process of law by conducting any enquiry contemplated under the provisions of law, they are sentenced vide order dated 7th May, 2018. It is contended that impugned order and consequential detention order, passed by the Court, is per se illegal. It is contended that none of the Petitioners and other women are beggars. 4. The Petitioners were initially represented by learned Senior Advocate Mr. It is contended that impugned order and consequential detention order, passed by the Court, is per se illegal. It is contended that none of the Petitioners and other women are beggars. 4. The Petitioners were initially represented by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Desai and subsequently by learned Advocate Mr. Vijay Hiremath. The learned Counsel submitted that none of the Petitioners are beggars. They are engaged in different occupation of selling garlands, balloons, domestic helps etc. There was no inquiry conducted to investigate and enquire whether the women were, in fact, begging. No report of the Probation Officer was called for to enquire into the veracity of the allegations that these women were into begging. The impugned order dated 7th May, 2018 have been passed erroneously. The Petitioner nos.2 to 30 along with their families belong to impoverished and marginalised background. They have been affected by natural disasters and other calamities. Having striven by poverty they came to Nashik looking for better opportunity of employment. They have been staying in Nashik for several years. Most of them are without shelter and have been staying on the streets. They have been facing unfortunate circumstances but despite that have courage and are striving to lead a better life. 5. It is submitted that there was a beggar free drive conducted by the Police force in Nashik as per the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nashik, to get rid of beggars from the city. As a part of drive, the Police arrested several persons under Section 4 of the said Act. The Petitioner nos.2 to 30 and 19 children were also arrested on 7th May, 2018. They were selling articles on the streets. They were not informed that they were being arrested for the offence of begging. They were taken to the Court. They were not offered legal assistance/representation. The charges were not read out to them and no enquiry was conducted to investigate whether these women were, in fact, beggars. On the same day, order dated 7th May, 2018 was passed. It is further contended that all 30 women were transferred from Nashik to Yerwada, Pune, at the Receiving Centre. However, they were not informed the reason why they are being taken to Pune. Their relatives were also not informed by the Police about their arrest and detention. On the same day, order dated 7th May, 2018 was passed. It is further contended that all 30 women were transferred from Nashik to Yerwada, Pune, at the Receiving Centre. However, they were not informed the reason why they are being taken to Pune. Their relatives were also not informed by the Police about their arrest and detention. Being transferred to Receiving Centre at Pune, they were detained for 3 days and on 10th May, 2018, they were transferred to Chembur at the certified institution for the remaining period of detention. It is further submitted that the certified home at Chembur is in pathetic condition and is highly unhygienic and harmful. The environment is depressing and there are no proper arrangements for sleeping, washrooms, toilets and proper ventilation etc. There is no female doctor. There is often delay in providing medical treatment even to the persons who have been detained there. It is an extremely unsafe place for children. It is submitted that the detention of the women and the children in the beggars home is extremely risky and unsafe, putting their lives in danger. It is further contended that there is complete noncompliance of provisions of the Act. The Act contemplates summary enquiry into the allegations of begging. It is submitted that Rule VI of the Rule framed under the said Act states that the Rules under the Code of Criminal Procedure for summons cases and recording of evidence are to be followed while conducting summary enquiry under Section 5 of the Act. In the present case, the procedure laid down in the Act has not been followed. It is further submitted that as per Section 5(6) of the Act, the Court has to take into consideration the report of the Probation Officer apart from other factors before passing an order under said provision. The Court did not take into consideration the other factors mentioned under Section 5(6) viz. age of the beggars, conditions and circumstances of the alleged beggars. Learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Lakhan vs. State reported in,2006 SCCOnline(Del) 1501. 6. Learned APP submitted that the impugned order has been passed by following procedure established by law. The Petitioner nos.2 to 30 were declared as beggars. Learned APP relies on the Affidavitinreply dated 9th July, 2018 filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nashik. 6. Learned APP submitted that the impugned order has been passed by following procedure established by law. The Petitioner nos.2 to 30 were declared as beggars. Learned APP relies on the Affidavitinreply dated 9th July, 2018 filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nashik. In the said Affidavitinreply, it is stated that on 29th September, 2017, the District Women and Child Development Officer received a letter from Assistant Commissioner, Women and Child Development, (Maharashtra State) Pune inter alia stating that the beggars, who were found and produced before the Competent Authority or Court and as per the order of the Court they are sent to various institution referred in the said letter. On the basis of letter dated 1st February, 2018 from District Women and Child Development Department, inter alia stating about effective implementation of Prevention of Begging Act and for that purpose video conference was arranged on 2nd February, 2018 by the Commissioner, Women and Child Development Department, Maharshtra. On 2nd February, 2018 guidelines were issued for beggarfree drive in that conference. In order to rehabilitation and counselling of child beggars, survey was conducted and the children who were found orphan, addicted, out of school, and in order to bring them in main stream, a meeting was arranged by Respondent no.5 on 21st March, 2018. It was noticed that beggars use children for begging. A team was constituted by District Child Protection Officer and Office Representative of Child Welfare Probation Officer. It is further stated that, District Legal Services Authority, Nashik, vide its letter dated 5th May, 2018 ordered to create child begging prevention team and to send information for the same to the said Authority till 7th May, 2018. In pursuant to letter dated 5th May, 2018 six prevention teams were formed consisting of a police officer, two women constables, one male constable, one women and protection officer and child development authority and representative of any social welfare association. The drive was arranged as per the order of Additional Commissioner (Prevention of Beggar Branch), Women and Child Development, Maharashtra State, all over the state. Survey was conducted jointly by Police Officer, Child Line, Nashik, Social Welfare College, Nashik and students who conduct the field work with the help of these people, where they found 30 women and 33 children begging. Thereafter immediately they were produced before the concerned Court. Survey was conducted jointly by Police Officer, Child Line, Nashik, Social Welfare College, Nashik and students who conduct the field work with the help of these people, where they found 30 women and 33 children begging. Thereafter immediately they were produced before the concerned Court. All the beggars were handed over to the officer Receiving Centre, Beggars Home, Yerwada, Pune and thereafter the authority had taken charge of the beggars and sent them to various beggars and shelter homes. On producing all the beggars before the Court, after enquiry and perusal of report of the police, order dated 7th May, 2018 was passed. The beggars prevention team had picked up actual beggars on the basis of the order dated 29th May, 2017 issued by Assistant Commissioner, Women and Child Development, Maharashtra and before conducting drive, a survey was conducted with local NGO and officer of Women and Child Development Department and thereafter Petitioner nos.2 to 30 and Others were took up and produced before the Court. The police had informed all the beggars the reason for taking them to Pune. Some of them were sent to Chembur, Mumbai. In each and every beggar home all necessary facilities viz. clothes, soaps, oil are provided. They are allowed to talk to their relatives using cell phones and provided with all medical facilities. Beggars home are taking proper care of beggars. Ten women along with their children were released as per the order passed by the Competent Court. There was no malafide intention on the part of Authorities initiating the said action. The drive was undertaken with bonafide intention of Government agencies and NGO to rehabilitate the beggars, provide them basic facilities like shelter, food and education to their children. It is thus submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Court. 7. Having heard both sides and scrutiny of the documents on record, the question which arises for consideration is whether the Court has wrongfully and arbitrarily declared Petitioner nos.2 to 30 as beggars and directed detention for one year in the certified institution and whether there is compliance of procedure prescribed under Maharashtra Begging Act. The impugned order dated 7th May, 2018 mentions that on 7th May, 2018 the persons/beggars named in the list attached being declared to be beggar under Section 5 (5)(c) of the Act, to be detained in certified beggars home. The impugned order dated 7th May, 2018 mentions that on 7th May, 2018 the persons/beggars named in the list attached being declared to be beggar under Section 5 (5)(c) of the Act, to be detained in certified beggars home. The communication was addressed to the Officer incharge, Receiving Centre, Beggar Home, Yerwada, Pune. It was further indicated that the addressee is authorised and required to receive the said persons in his custody and to detain them to certified institutions. Such communications were issued in respect to the detention of all the Petitioner nos.2 to 30 and accordingly in execution of the said order, initially they were detained at receiving centre at Yerwada and that they were detained at a certified home. The orders were passed in connection with action initiated by various police stations, such as Nashik Road Police Station, Adgaon Police Station, Nashik, Ambad Police Station, Nashik, Panchvati Police Station, Nashik, Bhadrakali Police Station, Nashik, Gangapur Police Station, Nashik and Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik. 8. To adjudicate the issue raised in this petition, it would be relevant to refer relevant provisions of the said Act. Section 4(1) allows Police to arrest the person without warrant if found begging. Section 5 of the Act provides summary inquiry by the Court in respect of persons found begging and their detention. Section 6 contemplates punishment for a person who had been previously detained in certified institution under the Act, who is found begging. Section 7 contemplates to summary procedure for trial. Section 2 defines begging and Rule 6 of Maharashtra Prevention of Begging Rules stipulates manner of summary enquiry under Section 5(1) of the Act. 9. Section 6 contemplates punishment for a person who had been previously detained in certified institution under the Act, who is found begging. Section 7 contemplates to summary procedure for trial. Section 2 defines begging and Rule 6 of Maharashtra Prevention of Begging Rules stipulates manner of summary enquiry under Section 5(1) of the Act. 9. Section 2 (1) defines begging as follows: "2 (1) (i) "begging" means (a) Soliciting or receiving alms in a public place, whether or not under any pretence such as singing, dancing, fortunetelling, performing or offering any article for male; (b) entering on any private premises for the purpose of soliciting or receiving alms; (c) exposing or exhibiting, with the object of obtaining or extorting alms any sore, wound, injury, deformity or disease whether of a human being or animal; (d) having no visible means of substance and wandering about or remaining in any public place in such condition or manner, as makes it likely that the person doing so exists by soliciting or receiving alms; (e) allowing oneself to be used as an exhibit for the purpose of soliciting or receiving alms; but does not include soliciting or receiving money or food or gifts for a purpose authorised by any law, or authorised in the manner prescribed in Greater Bombay by the Commissioner of Police, and elsewhere by the District Magistrate, or in any part of the State by the State Government." Section 4(1) of the Act reads thus: "4 (1) Any Police Officer or other person authorised in this behalf in accordance with rules made by the State Government may arrest without warrant any person who is found begging. Provided that no person entering on any private premises for the purpose of soliciting or receiving alms shall be arrested or shall be liable to any proceedings under this Act except upon a complaint by the occupier of the premises. (2) Such Police Officer or other person shall take or send the person so arrested to a Court. (3) The provisions of Section 61 of the Criminal Procedure Code to apply to every arrest under this Section and Officer incharge of the Police Station or Section shall cause the arrested person to be kept in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Court." Section 5 provides summary inquiry in respect of a person found begging and their detention. "5. "5. (1) Where a person who is brought before the Court under the last preceding section is not proved to have previously been detained in a Certified Institution under the provisions of this Act, the Court shall make a summary inquiry, in the prescribed manner, as regards the allegation that he was found begging. (2) If the inquiry referred to in subsection (1) cannot be completed forthwith, the Court may adjourn it from time to time and order the person to be remanded to such place and custody as may be convenient. (3) If on making the inquiry referred to in subsection (1), the Court is not satisfied that the person was found begging, it shall order that such person be released forthwith. (4) If on making the inquiry referred to in subsection (1), the Court is satisfied that such person was found begging, it shall record a finding that the person is a beggar. (4) If on making the inquiry referred to in subsection (1), the Court is satisfied that such person was found begging, it shall record a finding that the person is a beggar. (5) If a person is found to be a beggar under the last preceding subsection, the Court shall declare him to be a beggar and may (a) if the Court is satisfied from the circumstances of the case that the person is not likely to beg again, admonish and release the beggar on his or any other person whom Court considers suitable, executing a bond, with or without surety as the Court may require, requiring the beggar to abstain from begging and to be of good behaviour; or (b) if the Court is of opinion that the person is not likely to give up begging, by order direct such person to report himself forthwith to the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate having jurisdiction in the area and shall forward a copy of such order to the Commissioner of Police or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate; or (c) order the beggar to be detained in a Certified Institution for a period of not less one year, but not more than three years.] (6) In passing any order under the provisions of this Act, [the Court] have regard to the following considerations, that is to say (a) the age and character of the beggar, (b) the circumstances and conditions in which the beggar was living, (c) reports made by the Probation Officer, and (d) such other matters as may, in the opinion of the Court, require to be taken into consideration in the interest of the beggar. (7) The report of the Probation Officer or any other report considered by the Court under the subsection immediately preceding, shall be treated as confidential : Provided that is such report relates to the character, health or conduct of or the circumstances and conditions in which, the beggar is living, the Court may, if it thinks expedient, communicate the substance thereof to the beggar or (in case of dependants) to the guardian concerned, and may give the beggar or the guardian, as the case may be, an opportunity of producing evidence which may be relevant to the matters stated in the report. (8) A copy of the order made under subsection (5) shall be sent forthwith to the Chief Inspector. (9) Notwithstanding anything in this section, when the person found to be a beggar as aforesaid is a child, being a child who is not under the age of five years, the Court shall forward him to a Juvenile Court, and shall not made any order under subsection (5). The Juvenile Court shall deal with the child under section 40 of the Bombay Children Act, 1948, as if the child were a person described in clause (a) of that section. For the purpose of ascertaining the age of the person, the Court may, if necessary cause the beggar to be examined by a medical officer." The order was passed without complying the aforesaid prescribed procedure. 10. The Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Lakhan had laid down certain guidelines while passing order of detention under Section 5 of the said Act and declaring a person as a beggar. It would be relevant to quote paragraph 17 of the said decision, which reads thus; "17. In the backdrop of the foregoing discussion, whenever a person alleged to have been found begging is produced before a Court having jurisdiction under the said Act, such Court must proceed in the following manner: (1) First of all, it must satisfy itself that such person was, in fact, found begging. For this purpose, the Court must carefully scrutinize the evidence produced before it. It does not matter that the inquiry is a summary one. The court must be "satisfied" that the person was found begging. The evidence must be clear and unimpeachable. If there is any doubt or the prosecution requires the Court to draw upon many inferences then the Court must not record that the person before it was found begging. Consequently, the Court, in such a situation, cannot also record a finding that the person is a beggar. (2) Where the Court is satisfied that the person before it was found begging and therefore it is compelled to record a finding that he is a beggar, the Court "may" (and not "shall") order his detention in a certified Institution. (a) However, where the person has a defence of duress or necessity, the person ought not to be detained. (2) Where the Court is satisfied that the person before it was found begging and therefore it is compelled to record a finding that he is a beggar, the Court "may" (and not "shall") order his detention in a certified Institution. (a) However, where the person has a defence of duress or necessity, the person ought not to be detained. As pointed out above, whether the specific defence of duress or necessity is taken by the beggar or not, it is an obligation on the Court to satisfy itself that the person did not have such a defence. (b) And, where it appears to the Court that the person was found begging because of his addiction to drinks or drugs, not much purpose would be served by sending him to a certified Institution which does not provide for detoxification or deaddition. The burgeoning problem of drug addiction and alcohol dependence coupled with the problem of begging is a complex one. Here begging is only a symptom of the malady of addiction. Taking action on begging while ignoring the problem of addiction is much the same as prescribing a painkiller for the pain and ignoring the treatment of the disease which is the underlying cause for the pain. So, in such cases the Court, after due admonition ought to release the beggar on a condition that he shall go in for detoxification or deaddiction at an accredited institution. A bond to this effect may be taken by the Court in the manner provided in the proviso to Section 5(5) of the said Act. (c) In all other cases, after the Court records a finding that a person is a beggar, the Court can order detention of such a person in a certified Institution. But, here too, the Court must first explore the possibility of applying the principle of admonition as given in the proviso to Section 5(5) itself. (3) Lastly, in no circumstance should a person ordered to be detained in a certified institution, be detained in a prison. That is clearly illegal. The State must follow this legal prescription strictly. A deviation from this would render the detention illegal and entitle the aggrieved person to be released from detention forthwith." It would be relevant to note that the applicability of Bombay Prevention of Begging Act was extended to Delhi. 11. That is clearly illegal. The State must follow this legal prescription strictly. A deviation from this would render the detention illegal and entitle the aggrieved person to be released from detention forthwith." It would be relevant to note that the applicability of Bombay Prevention of Begging Act was extended to Delhi. 11. Rule 6 of the Rules framed under the said Act states that the rules under the Code of Criminal Procedure for summons cases and recording of evidence are to be followed while conducting a summary enquiry under Section 5 of the Act. Apparently no such procedure is followed while passing the impugned order. On 7th May, 2018 the Petitioner nos.2 to 30 were arrested purportedly under Section 4(1) of the said Act. However to invoke the said provision there has to be reasonable belief that arrested person should be suspected to be engaged in begging. 30 women and 19 children were apprehended by police. On the same day, they were taken to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nashik. No enquiry was conducted to investigate whether these women were, in fact, beggars. Nothing is brought on record by the Respondents to show that such enquiry was conducted. The said Petitioners were declared as beggars and sentenced to detention for a period of one year. The order does not spell out reasons. The said Petitioners were sent from Nashik to Yerwada, Pune at the Receiving Centre. There is no record to indicate that they were informed the grounds of arrest, the reason for which they were taken to Pune and whether information was provided to any of their relatives about their arrest and detention. The said Petitioners were then transferred to certified institution at Chembur, Mumbai. The Affidavit filed by the Respondents vaguely mentions that after enquiry and perusal of report, the Learned Magistrate was pleased to pass order dated 7th May, 2018. It is also stated that the Petitioners were picked up and produced before competent authority i.e. Court and this order was passed after perusing this documents available before the Court. 12. It is evident that summary inquiry contemplated under Section 5(1) of the Act has not been conducted in accordance with Section 7 of the Act and Rule VI which provides for manner in which summary inquiry under Section 5(1) to be conducted. 12. It is evident that summary inquiry contemplated under Section 5(1) of the Act has not been conducted in accordance with Section 7 of the Act and Rule VI which provides for manner in which summary inquiry under Section 5(1) to be conducted. The Court is required to scrutinise the evidence produced before it and although the enquiry is summary. This Court must be satisfied that the person was found begging. The Court must explore the possibility of applying the principle of admonition contemplated under Section 5(5) of this Act. 13. Section 5(5) provides that a person found to be a beggar not to be detained in a certified institution for a period of not less than one year, but not more than three years. The proviso to this subsection indicates that, if the Court is satisfied from the circumstances of the case that the person found to be beggar is not likely to repeat such act again, it may after due admonition, release the beggar on a bond for the beggars abstaining from begging and being of a rod behaviour. The circumstances to be taken into consideration while passing order under the Act are indicates in Section 5(6) of the said Act, such as age and character of the beggar, circumstances and conditions in which the beggar was living, reports by Probation Officer and such other matters as may in the opinion of the Court, requires to be taken into consideration in the interest of beggar. The factors, such as helplessness, poverty and duress are to be taken into consideration. There is noncompliance of the aforesaid procedural safeguards and the order reflects total nonapplication of mind. 14. To review and revise the Act i.e. Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1960, a commission was established viz. Justice Gokhale Commission, in 1990. The said commission had come up with conclusion that the Act is outdated, right from the definition of begging to the need of detention of beggars and the condition of beggars home etc. However, the recommendation of the commission apparently were not acted upon. The Petitioners have placed on record the copy of the recommendations from the report of Justice Gokhale Commission which is annexed to this petition. However, the recommendation of the commission apparently were not acted upon. The Petitioners have placed on record the copy of the recommendations from the report of Justice Gokhale Commission which is annexed to this petition. Some of the recommendations are as follows: (i) need for a new law to establish welfare homes and decriminalise begging; (ii) established welfare homes and decriminalise begging; (iii) use Indian Penal Code provisions for petitioners/beggars; (iv) classification of beggars; (v) reorganization of beggars home in Mumbai; (vi) no judicial procedure noted for helpless destitute; (vii) strengthen provisions; (viii)participation of voluntary agents; (ix) abolition of indefinite detention; and (x) need to promote organised charity. 15. The preamble of the act gives the object and purpose of the enactment as follows: "An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to beggars for the purpose of making uniform and better provision for the prevention of begging in the State of Bombay and for matters connected therewith. Whereas it is expedient to make uniform and better provision for the prevention of begging in the State of Bombay; for the detention, training and employment of beggars and their dependants in certain institutions; for the custody, trial and punishment of beggar offenders; and for these and other purposes to consolidate and amend the law relating to beggars." 16. The definition of begging in the Act indicate the legislative intent to cover a broad area including all types of begging. Food, clothing and shelter, constitute an essential needs of every human being. The root cause is poverty which has many structural reasons such as no access to education, social protection etc. The people who beg are poorest of the poor and marginalised in society. They do not have access to basic necessities such as food, shelter and health. The constitution mandates the State to ensure that all its citizens justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. I am mindful of the fact that this Court is not exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence there are limitations in issuing any writ order or directives to the authorities. I am also conscious that the relief sought in this petition is not to decriminalise the offence of begging and the prayer i.e. to set aside impugned order. I am also conscious that the relief sought in this petition is not to decriminalise the offence of begging and the prayer i.e. to set aside impugned order. However, in the light of the observations made hereinabove, the least that is expected from the concerned authorities is to follow due process of law. The authorities are bound by rule of law. The persons who are branded as beggars have a right to know the grounds on which they are indicted and the right to defend themselves. The principle of natural justice cannot be brushed aside. The Trial Court shall follow the procedural safeguards. Person cannot be branded as beggar casually and his liberty can not be curtailed without following procedure established by law. The provisions of the Act shall be strictly adhered to. The petitioners were illiterate persons, they were not represented by any advocates. They were handicapped on account of lack of legal aid. As noted above, about 30 women were sent from Nashik to Yerwada, Pune at the Receiving Centre. They were transferred to certified institutions for the remaining period of their detention. It is also canvassed that there are no proper facilities at the certified institution and it is in pathetic condition and highly unhygienic and harmful. The said contention is refuted in Affidavit filed by the Respondent. The subject matter of the petition being challenge to the impugned orders. There are limitations in issuing any directions. However, it is expected that the beggar home is not in condition as represented by the petitioners in the present petition. In the circumstances, the Petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned orders. Hence, I pass the following order: : O r d e r : The impugned order dated 7th May, 2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nashik under Section 5 of Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1960 is set aside. Petitioner nos.4 (Anita Madansingh Jonwal), 7 (Nasreen Salim Khan), 11 (Tulsabai Kachri Kambde), 12 (Rohini Santosh Gosavi), 15 (Sonali Raghunath Khandvi), 16 (Ramabai Vishram Patankar), 17 (Lata Limbaji Kale), 18 (Usha Sameer Mhatre), 20 (Ruksana Shahzad Khan), 25 (Shakuntala Jadhav), 26 (Hirabai Narayan Thorve), 27 (Parvati Masu), 28 (Hirabai Masu Patil), 29 (Rukmini Pawaskar), 30 (Kojabai Gare) be released forthwith.