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 against him was not taken as such editor as provided by that Section and certain other provisions in the Act resulting in the invalidity of the said order and that the said order was mala fide as the Union Home Minister had failed to file an affidavit swearing as to his satisfaction although the petition contained specific allegations denying such satisfaction. That petition W. P. No. 47 of 1966: was heard and was dismissed on April 19, 1966 rejecting the aforesaid contentions. On June 11, 1966 the Central Government passed an order continuing the said detention order under R. 30 -A (9). But whereas the Order of December 10, l965 directed the petitioner s detention with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the Defence of India and Civil defence, public safety and the maintenance of public order the said order continuing his detention set out only the defence of India and civil defence. Likewise, though the original order described the petitioner as the son of the late Shri Diwan Chand Sharma, editor of the Evening View residing at etc., the order of June 11, 1966 simply described him as the son of the late Shri Diwan Chand Sharma. This difference probably was and had to be made as by reason of his detention he was no longer editing the said newspaper and was no longer residing at the address set out in the original order.

(2) In the present petition the petitioner challenges both the orders on the following grounds:-

(i) that there is no valid order of detention under any of the provisions or the Act or the Rules made thereunder;

(ii) that his continued detention under the order of June 11, l966 was in contravention of Rule 23 of the Defence of India (Delhi Detenus) Rules, 1964 inasmuch as he was denied the right of representation by a letter of the Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs dated December 27, 1965;

(iii) that the detention was punitive and not preventive as the principal ground of his detention viz., his writings in his said paper, had ceased to be the ground since the said paper had become defunct, the requisite declaration in respect thereof having lapsed;

(iv) that the said detention order contravened Section 44 of the Act, and

(v) that the orders of detention and continuation were illegal as they were mala fide and made without any application of mind by the Home Minister; consequently there was no satisfaction as required by S. 3 and R. 30 (1) (b).

3. Contentions 2, 4 and part of contention 5 in so far as they concern the original order of detention no longer survive as they were disposed of by the decision in W. P. 47 of 1966. The petitioner therefore cannot be permitted to reagitate the same questions, it not being his case that any new circumstances have arisen justifying their reagitation. Contention N