Judgement

SIKRI, J.: These appeals by certificate granted by the Bombay High Court are directed against its judgment, dated April 13, 1964 in applications filed by the applicants under Art. 226 of the Constitution, and S. 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1964 has become infructuous because the appellant, S. V. Parulekar, has died.

2. Mr. R. K. Garg appears on behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 1964. It is common ground that the points arising in all the appeals are common, and in order to appreciate the points, it would be sufficient if the facts in Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 1964, relevant to the arguments addressed to us, are only given. The relevant facts given in Paras. 2 and 3 of the affidavit filed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra are as follows:

2. With reference to Para 1 of the said Petition I say that the petitioner was detained under order, dated the 7th November 1962 issued by the District Magistrate, Thana, under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. On 10th November 1962, the Government of Maharashtra revoked the order of detention, dated the 7th November 1962 issued by the District Magistrate, Thana, and the revocation order was served on the petitioner on the 11th November 1962. Thereafter the petitioner was served with another order of detention, dated the 10th November 1962 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under R. 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. Further by its order, dated the 25th September 1963, the Government of Maharashtra cancelled the said order of detention, dated the 10th November 1962 and in pursuance of the said cancellation order the petitioner was released from detention on 27th September 1963. After she actually came out of the Yeravda Central Prison gates and was a free woman, the fresh orders of detention and committal dated the 25th September 1963 issued by the Government of Maharashtra were served on her and she was again detained in the Yeravda Central Prison, Yeravda, Poona. Thereafter, by its order, dated the 3rd February, 1964, the Government of Maharashtra cancelled its order of detention, dated the 25th September 1963 and the petitioner was again released on the 4th February 1964. After the actually came out of the Arthur Road District Prison gates and was a free woman, she was served with a fresh order of detention, dated the 3srd February 1964 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under R. 30 of the Defence of India Rules. 1962 and redetained with a view to prevent her from acting in a manner prejudicial to the defence of India, the public safety and maintenance of public order. The last two orders of cancellation and detention, dated the 3rd February 1964 are attached to the said petition as Annexures A and B, respectively.

(3) With reference to Para. 2 of the said petition I say that what is stated therein is generally correct. I further say that the petitioner is a Communist belonging to the Ranadive Group, which maintains that China has not committed any aggression on India and which actively propagates that view.

3. The High Court of Bombay held that the detention of the appellant from May 1963 to February 1964 was illegal but the order of detention passed on February 3, 1964 was legal, and accordingly the appellant could not be ordered to be released. It is this order of February 3, 1964, which is now the subject-matter of challenge.

4. Mr. Garg for the appellant raised the following points before us:

(1) That the State Government having delegated its powers conferred upon it under R. 30 of the Defence of India rules, 1962, by Notification Home Department (Special) No. S. B. III/DOR.1162-1, dated the 9th November 1962 to all District Magistrates within the limits of their jurisdiction subject to the conditions mentioned in the Notification, the State Government was not competent to pass an order of detention under R 30.

(2) That the order of detention is bad because two Ministers cannot legal