on december 24 1965 he filed a writ petition under art.
likewise though the original order described the petitioner as the son of the late shri diwan chand sharma editor of the evening view residing at etc.
but whereas the order of december 10 1965 directed the petitioners detention with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of india and civil defence public safety and the maintenance of public order the said order companytinuing his detention set out only the defence of india and civil defence.
annexure d to the petition is the affidavit of b. s. raghavan deputy secretary in the ministry of home affairs filed in the previous petition.
the order inter alia stated whereas the central government is satisfied that with a view to preventing shri p. l. lakhanpal from acting in any manner prejudicial to tile defence of india and civil defence public safety and the maintenance of public order it is necessary that he should be detained.
this difference probably was and had to be made as by reason of his detention he was no longer editing the said newspaper and was numberlonger residing at the address set out in the original order.
in that affidavit it was clearly stated that the activities of the petitioner do conclusively prove that the petitioner is a pro pakistani and anti indian that there was material before the union home minister about the prejudicial activities of the petitioner and he was satisfied that it was necessary to detail the petitioner and that it was the anti national activities of the petitioner that was responsible for his detention.
that the detention was punitive and number preventive as the principal ground of his detention viz.
in the present petition the petitioner challenges both the orders on the following grounds that there is numbervalid order of detention under any of the provisions of the act or the rules made thereunder that his companytinued detention under the order of june 1 1 1966 was in companytravention of rule 23 of the defence of india delhi detenues rules 1964 inasmuch as he was denied the right of representation by a letter of the deputy secretary in the ministry of home affairs dated december 27 1965 w.p.
the order of june 11 1966 simply described him as the son of the late shri diwan chand sharma.
companytentions 2 4 and part of companytention 5 in so far as they concern the original order of detention numberlonger survive as they were disposed of by the decision in w.p.
his writings in his said paper had ceased to be the ground since the said paper had become defunct the requisite declaration in respect thereof having lapsed that the said detention order companytravened section 44 of the act and that the orders of detention and companytinuation were illegal as they were mala fide and made without any application of mind by the home minister companysequently there was numbersatisfaction as required by s. 3 and r. 30 i b .
on june 11 1966 the central government passed an order companytinuing the said detention order under r. 3oa 9 .
original jurisdiction writ petition number 137 of 1966.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shelat j. the petitioner was detained by an order dated december 10 1965 under rule 30 i b of the defence of india rules 1962.
petition under art.
companytention number 3 also cannumber be sustained because the affidavit clearly shows that the detention was ordered number only because of his writings in the said newspaper but that the said two orders were made after taking into consideration the over all picture of his activities.
the petitioner appeared in person.
47 of 1966 decided on april 19 1966.
that petition 1 was heard and was dismissed on april 19 1966 rejecting the aforesaid companytentions.
32 of the companystitution in this companyrt for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention inter alia on the grounds that rule 30 i b was ultra vires s. 3 2 15 i of the defence of india act 1962 that rule 23 of the defence of india delhi detenues rules 1964 gave him a right to make a representation by providing a review of the said detention order and also by providing that a detenu will be allowed to interview a legal practitioner for the purpose of drafting his representation and that his said right was violated by his being prevented from making such a representation that the said order violated s. 44 inasmuch as though he was an editor of a newspaper action against him was number taken as such editor as provided by that section and certain other provisions in the act resulting in the invalidity of the said order and that the said order was mala fide as the union home minister had failed to file an affidavit swearing as to his satisfaction although the petition companytained specific allegations denying such satisfaction.
