P L LAKHANPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was arrested by an order, dated December 10, 1965 under R. 30 (1) (b) of the Defence India Rules, 1962 and was detained in Central Jail, Tehar. New Delhi. On the 24th December 1965, he filed writ petition No. 47 of 1966 in this Court challenging his detention, inter alia, on the grounds that (1) Rule 30 (1) (b) was ultra vires S. 3 (2) (15) (i) of the Defence of India Act, (2) that R. 23 of the defence of India (Delhi Detenues) Rules, 1964 gave him a right to make a representation by providing review of the said detention order and that his said right was disregarded by his having been prevented from making such representation (3) that the said order was in breach of S. 44 of the Act, and (4) that it was made in mala fide exercise of power. That petition was dismissed on April, 19, 1966. The petitioner was thereafter served with an order, dated June 11, 1966 passed by the Central Government under R. 30-A (9) of the said Rules. The said order, inter alia, stated that " the said detention order has been reviewed by the Central Government and upon such review the Central Government hereby decides that Shri P. L. Lakhanpal should continue to be detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the Defence of India and Civil Defence." The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.137 of 1966 challenging the validity of the said original order of detention and the order, dated June 11, 1966. Rule 30-A (9) provides as follows:_

(2.) The petitioner contended:-

(3.) Now, there is no doubt that under the Act as also under the said Rules the Government is the special forum on whose subjective satisfaction an order of detention for the considerations set out in R. 30 (1)(b) can be made and on whose decision arrived at on the considerations and in the manner prescribed by R. 30-A (9) such detention can be continued. However, as held in P.L. Lakhanpal vs. Union of India, Writ Petn. No. 137 of 1966, D/- 21-9-1966 (reported in AIR 1967 SC 908), there is a difference in the power to detain and the power to continue such detention beyond a period of' six months in that whereas the former depends upon the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, the latter has in express terms been made dependent on the existence of facts and circumstances necessitating such continuance. This Court held in that petition: