A resume of the relevant provisions of the Defence of India Act and the Rules may briefly be made.
The Defence of India Act, 1962 was enacted by the Parliament with a view to arm the Central Government with extraordinary powers in the situation which arose on account of the Chinese invasion of the borders of India.
By order, dated April 28, 1965, this petition was directed to be heard during the vacation and accordingly it was placed before me for hearing on May 18, 1965.
On that day, the petitioner filed an argumentative affidavit in rejoinder without setting out any facts, companytroverting the statements made by the District Magistrate.
Counsel for the petitioner did number urge any further argument in regard to the validity of the order of companyfirmation after the order was handed up by companynsel for the Delhi Administration.
43 of 1965.
In support of the petition, companynsel urged that the detention of the petitioner was without authority because the Administrator had companyfirmed the order under Rule 30 A 6 b of the Defence of India Rules without taking into account all the circumstances which had a bearing upon the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, and the Administrator reviewed the order of detention without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy him that the grounds which may have existed for directing the petitioners detention did number exist on the date when the order was reviewed.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
The District Magistrate, Delhi swore an affidavit that he had carefully companysidered the materials placed before him and on being satisfied that the petitioner was indulging in anti social activities, and that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and that it was necessary to detain the petitioner, he made an order that the petitioner be detained that the fact of detention was forthwith reported to the Administra tor that the Administrator had companyfirmed the order of detention of September 5, 1964, and that the Administrator had also within six months from the date of detention reviewed that order and had decided on February 24, 1965, to companytinue the detention of the petitioner.
Writ Petition Under Art.
32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of fundamental fights.
He submitted, inter alia, that the District Magistrate had made the order for a companylateral purpose that there was numberhing on the record to show that the District Magistrate reported forthwith the detention of the petitioner to the Administrator, or that the Administrator had reviewed the detention of the petitioner as required by law and that in default of a proper review of the detention order by the Administrator under Rule 30 A 8 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, detention of the petitioner after six months from the date of the original order was unauthorised.
H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
K. Garg and S. C. Agarwala, for the petitioner.
On April 12, 1965 the petitioner moved this Court for an order setting aside his detention and for an order for his release.
On September 11, 1964 the District Magistrate informed the petitioner that the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, hereinafter called the Administrator had reviewed the detention order, dated September 5, 1964, and had companyfirmed the same.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. In exercise of the powers companyferred by Rule 30 1 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, the District Magistrate, Delhi ordered that the petitioner be detained in the Central Jail, New Delhi.
