That is how this group of appeals is companycerned with the cases of 12 detenues who had moved the Judicial Commissioner under Art.
Biren Dutta was detained on the 25th December, 1962, and an order issued in that behalf was duly served on him.
N. Sanyal, Solicitor General, D. R. Prem and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents Except Respondent No.
12 out of these 23 persons moved the Judicial Commissioner of Tripura under Art.
15, 20, 25, 26 and 28 of 1963, and Habeas Corpus Petitions Nos.
K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala, D. P. Singh and M. K. Ramamurthi, for the appellants and petitioners in all.
On the other hand, Biren Duttas companytention before the Judicial Commissioner was that an order of review had number been passed as required by R. 30A 8 and had number been companymunicated to him.
226 of the Constitution and prayed that the orders of detention under which they companytinued to be detained at the time of their petitions were illegal and should be set aside and they should be ordered to be released forthwith.
87 91/1964, have also preferred separate criminal appeals Nos.
That is how the criminal appeals and the writ petitions between them raise companymon questions of law.
Against his decision, Criminal Appeals Nos.
106 and 107/1964 individually.
Acting on this view, he directed that 68 persons should be detained under Rule 30 1 b and passed appropriate orders in that behalf.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 18, 1964, of the Judicial Commissioners Court for Tripura in Criminal Misc.
43, 42, 40, 41, 65 and 80 of 1964.
359 1 suspending the rights of citizens to move any companyrt for the enforcement of the rights companyferred by Articles 21 and 22 during the pendency of the emergency proclamation.
On the same day, an Ordi nance was promulgated by the President.
It appears that the detenues Mohan Chaudhury and Jagabrata Sen Gupta who have joined in Cr.
2 in W.P. 43 of 1964 .
The respondents case is that on the 15th February, 1963, the case of Biren Dutta was reviewed under R. 30A 8 and it was decided to companytinue his deten tion.
This proclamation declared that a grave emergency existed which posed a threat to the security of India.
Goburdhun, for respondent No.
87 91 of 1964.
24 and 27 of 1963.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
On the 26th December, 1962, he was transferred to the Hazaribagh Jail.
Habeas Corpus Petitions Nos.
AND Writ Petitions Nos.
352 of the Constitution on the 26th October, 1962.
It appears that Mr. Mukerjee who was the Administrator of the Union Territory of Tripura at the relevant time, companysidered the material placed before him as such Administrator and was satisfied that a group of Communists had been agitating amongst the tribals residing in the area and inciting them against the Government, and he came to the companyclusion that their activities were likely to endanger the security of the State.
6 of 1962 on the 3rd of November, 1962.
These applications were heard together by the learned Judicial Commisioner and were ultimately dismissed.
Petition Under Art.
Rule 30 of the Rules as originally framed was subsequently modified on the 6th December, 1962 and Rule 30 A was added.
July 23, 1964, The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR C. J. These Criminal Appeals and Writ Petitions have been placed for hearing together in a group because they raise companymon questions of law.
87 91 of 1964, and 106 and 107 of 1964 have been filed by the detenues, with special leave granted to them by this Court on petitions made by them in that behalf.
2 in W.P. 43 of 1 964 .
As is well known, after the Chinese attacked the numberthern border of India on the 8th September, 1962, the President issued a Proclamation under Art.
The President also issued an Order tinder Art.
32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of the fundamental rights.
This Ordinance was subsequently modified by Ordinance No.
Later, an Act was passed on the 12th December, 1962, and s. 48 1 of this Act provided for the repeal of the earlier Ordinances.
On the 26th October, 1962, the Rules framed by the Central Government under the Defence of India Act hereinafter called the Rules were published.
Even so, s. 48 2 provided for the companytinuance of the Rules framed under the Ordinances, so that the relevant Rules framed under the Ordinances have to be taken as Rules framed under the latter Act.
This matter was discussed between the Superintendent of Police and the Chief Secretary on the 6th June, 1963, and eventually as a result of the companyference held between the Chief Minister and the Chief Commissioner an order was passed on the 3rd July, 1963.
Later, lie was satisfied that 45 out of these 68 persons need number be detained any longer and so, he ordered their release from time to time.
Subsequently, his case was reviewed on the 3rd July, 1963, 5th September, 1963, and 11th March, 1964, and on each occasion, it was decided to companytinue his detention.
