number 61/65 .
number 47/65 .
s. bindra b. g. k. achar and r. n. sachthey for respondent number 2 in both the petitions .
advocate general punjab and r. n. sachthey for intervener number 1.
c. setalvad n. c. chatterjee m. r. k. pillai r. k. garg s. c. agarwala d. p. singh and m. k. ramamurthi for the petitioner in w.p.
to these two petitioners are impleaded respondent number 1 the chief secretary government of madras respondent number 2 the superintendent central jail cuddalore and respondent number 3 the union of india.
k. ananda nambiar who is a member of parliament has been detained by the government of madras since the 30th december 1964.
niren de additional solicitor generaln.
all the other interveners appeared in person.
k. garg s. c. agarwala d. p. singh and m. k. rama murthi for the petitioner in w.p.
krishnaswami reddy advocate general madras v. p. raman and a. v. rangam for respondent number 1 in both the petitions .
by his present writ petition number 47 of 1965 filed under art.
though this order directed the detention of the petitioner in the central jail tiruchirapalli it is common ground that he has been detained in fact in the central jail cuddalore.
criminal jurisdiction writ petitions number.
47 and 61 of 1965.
d. kaushal dy.
he has also been detained number in the central jail tiruchirapalli as mentioned in the order but in the central jail cuddalore since the 30th december 1964.
he companytends that rule 30 1 b under which the impugned order has been passed is invalid and in the alternative he argues that the impugned order is number valid because it has been passed mala fide and is otherwise number justified by the relevant rules.
r. umanath who is also a member of parliament has been similarly detained by the order passed by the government of madras on the 29th december 1964 and in the same terms.
k. garg s. c. agarwala d. p. singh and m. k. rama murthi for the intervener makhan singh tarsikka .
by his writ petition number 61 of 1965 the petitioner umanath has raised the same points before us.
p. singh for the state of bihar and union territory of tripura.
32 of the companystitution the petitioner challenges the validity of the said order of detention mainly on two grounds.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar c.j.
veerappa and hardev singh for the interveners satwant singh and 12 ors.
on the 29th december 1964 an order was passed under rule 30 1 b and 4 of the defence of india rules 1962 in which it was stated that the government of madras were satisfied with respect to the petitioner k. ananda nambiar that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of india and the public safety it was necessary to make an order directing that he be detained the said order further directed that the petitioner should be arrested by the police wherever found and detained in the central jail tiruchirapalli.
