Judgment

SHELAT, J. : The petitioner was detained by an order dated December 10, 1965 under Rule 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules, l962. The order inter alia stated:-

"Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that with a view to preventing Shri P. L.. Lakhanpal ....from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India, and civil defence, public safety and the maintenance of public order, it is necessary that he should be detained."

On December 24, 1965 he filed a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution in this Court for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention inter alia on the grounds that Rule 30 (1) (b) was ultra vires S. 3 (2) (15) (i) of the Defence of India Act, l962, that Rule 23 of the Defence of India (Delhi Detenus) Rules, 1964 gave him a right to make a representation by providing a review of the said detention order and also by providing that a detenu will be allowed to interview a legal practitioner for the purpose of drafting his representation and that his said right was violated by his being prevented from making such a representation, that the said order violated S. 44 inasmuch as though he was an editor of a newspaper action agains