SADHU SINGH Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In exercise of the powers conferred by R. 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. 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 confirmed the same. On April 12, 1965 the petitioner moved this Court for an "order setting aside the detention" and for an order for his release. He submitted, inter alia, that the District Magistrate had made the order for a collateral purpose that there was nothing 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 R. 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.

(2.) The District Magistrate, Delhi, swore an affidavit that he had carefully considered the materials placed before him and on being satisfied that the petitioner 'was indulging in antisocial 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 Administrator that the Administrator had confirmed the order of detention on September 5, 1964, and that the Administrator had also within six months from the date of detention reviewed that order and hand decided on February 24, 1965 to continue the detention of the petitioner.

(3.) 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, controverting the statements made by the District Magistrate.