Judgment

MUDHOLKAR, J. : The petitioner who has been detained in the Central Jail, Jaipur under an order dated January 19, 1965 made by the District Magistrate, Ganganagar under Cl. (b) of Sub-r. (1) of R. 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 has moved this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution for the grant of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus.

2. An order of detention of the petitioner under the aforesaid provision was first made on April 5, 1963. It could not be served on the petitioner for a long time because it is said that he was absconding. On November l, l964 he was arrested in connection with an offence under S. 307/395, Indian Penal Code but was released on bail. On November 4, 1964 the order of detention was served on him and he was sent to the Central Jail, Jaipur for being detained. On January 18, 1965 the original order of detention was cancelled by the Government because, we are informed, informed of some defect therein. The order of cancellation was served on him on January 21, 1965 and he was released in pursuance thereto. Immediately thereafter however, he was re-arrested under a warrant issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karampur in respect of the offence under S. 307/395, I. P. C. Prior to this, that is, on January 19, l965 the District Magistrate, Ganganagar made an order of detention of the petitioner. This order was served on him in jail on January 23, 1965. Since that date he is in detention. By his order dated July 7, 1965 the Governor of Rajasthan, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-r. (7) of R. 30 (A) directed that the petitioner s detention be continued.

3. Mr. S. C. Agarwala appearing for the petitioner has challenged the detention of the petitioner on two grounds: (1) that as the petitioner was already in jail when the order dated January 19, 1965 was served on him, his detention is illegal, (2) that the reviewing authority contemplated by sub-r. (7) of R. 30 (A) did not review the order of detention and, therefore, the order made by the Governor on July 7, l965 is vitiated.

4. In support of the first contention reliance is placed by learned counsel on the decision of this Court in Rameshwar Shaw v District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1964 SC 334. In that case an order of detention was made against a person under S. 3 (1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 at a point of time when that person was an under-trial prisoner in jail and served on him in jail. It was contended before this Court that it would not be possible for the detaining authority to come to the conclusion that person who is in jail custody may act in a prejudicial manner unless he is detained While dealing with this contention this Court observed that it is necessary to bear in mind the past conduct or antecedent history of the person on which the detaining authority purports to act, that the activities of the person must be proximate in point of time to the making of the order of detention and also that these should have a rational connection with the conclusion that the detention of the person is necessary. It is true that upon the facts of that case this Court quashed the order of detention but it also observed thus

"As abstract proposition of law, there may not be any doubt that S. 3 (1) (a) does not preclude the authority from passing an order of detention against a person whilst he is in detention or in jail; but the relevant facts in connection with the making of the order may differ and that may make a difference in the application of the principle that a detention order can be passed against a person in jail."

5. This decision was referred to in Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 1120, and it was held there that the principles laid down therein would also apply to the case of a person against whom an order of detention is made under R. 30 of the Defence of India Rules. Mr. Agarwala relies upon the observations of this Court in the aforesaid decision to the effect that the service of a detention ord