The principles of natural justice do not apply to the review of a detention order under R. 30-A of the Defence of India Rules, 1962.

Judgement

SHAH, J.: 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.

4. In support of the petition, counsel urged that the detention of the petitioner was without authority because the Administrator had confirmed the order under R. 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 petitioner s detention did not exist on the date when the order was reviewed.

5. 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 S. 3 of the Act power was conferred upon the Central Government to make rules for securing the Defence of India, civil defence, public safety, maintenance of public order and related matters. Rule 30 authorised the Central Government or the State Government, if it was satisfied with respect to any particular person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the Defence of India and civil defence, the public safety, the maintenance of public order, etc., it was necessary so to do, to make an order amongst others directing that he be detained. By R. 30-A machinery was set up for confirmation and review of detention orders. Clause (2) of R.30-A provided that every detention order shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rule. Clause (5) provided that a detention order made by an officer e