BALRNUKAND Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Balmukand alias Balu has presented this writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. He is detained under a detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Delhi, on February 25, 1963, under R. 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, hereinafter called the rules. The District Magistrate was empowered to issue such orders, by the Administrator. The petitioner was arrested on February 27, 1963. The order of the Magistrate was confirmed by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi on March 26, 1963. The administrator reviewed the order on September 25, 1963 and on March 11, 1964 and each time decided that the detention order should be continued. The orders passed on review were communicated to the petitioner, each time.

(2.) The validity of the detention order is not questioned by the petitioner. The facts noted abover are also not disputed. It is contended [or the petitioner that the detention order had to be reviewed by the Administrator before the expiry of six months from the date of the detention order i.e., February 25, 1963. On behalf of the respondents it has been urged by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the period of six months for the purpose of the review of the detention order is to be reckoned from the date on which the Administrator confirmed the detention order i.e., the 26th of March 1963 and not from the date of the detention order. It is also urged that the order of confirmation itself should be taken as the first order of review as such an order is made under the provisions of R. 30-A of the rules which deals with review of detention orders. We are of opinion that the contention for the petitioner is sound.

(3.) Sub-rule (1) of R. 30-A provides that in that rule 'detention order' means an order made under cl. (b) of sub-r. (1) of R. 30. Sub-rule (4) mentions the authorities which have to review the detention order made by an officer empowered by the State Government or the Administrator. The Administrator is the authority to review the order when made by an officer empowered by him to make a detention order under R. 30(10(b). Sub-rule (5) enjoins that the officer empowered by the State Government or the Administrator to make the detention order shall forthwith report the fact of his making the detention order to the reviewing authority or, as the case may be, to the Administrator. Sub-rule 6(a) lays down what the review authority has to do on receipt of a report under sub-r. (5). The reviewing authority has, after taking into account all the circumstances of the case, to recommend to the State Government whether the detention order is to be confirmed or cancelled and the State Government, on receipt of the recommendation, has either to confirm or cancel the order as it may deem fit. Under sub-r. (b) of R. 6, the Administrator too, in regard to order made by an officer empowered by him to make such detention orders, has to lake into account all the circumstances of the case and thereafter either confirm the detention order or cancel it. Sub-rules (7) and (8) provide for the reviewing authority or the Administrator to review the detention order made by the officers empowered by the State Government or the Administrator respectively at intervals of not more than 6 months. The reviewing authority has to send its recommendation to the Government which has to decide whether the detention order be continued or cancelled. The Administrator has himself to decide whether that detention order be continued or cancelled, Sub-rule (9) deals with the review of detention orders made by the Central and the State Governments respectively, Such orders are to be reviewed at intervals of not more than 6 months by the Government making the detention order.