Satyanarayana Rao, J.-The applicants in all these applications are Indians who were living in Malaya for some years, and as they were engaged in Malaya in Communist activities, the Malayan Government seems to have detained some of the important leaders under the Malayan Emergency Regulations. But as they are Indian nationals, the Malayan Government released them and repatriated them. The applicants along with others arrived in India by S.S. Vasna in November, 1948. Immediately after their arrival, on the 19th November, 1948, they were arrested by the police in Madras and were detained in custody. They were later produced before the Commissioner of Police, Madras, who remanded them for 9 days, and the period of remand was later extended by a further order. On the 30th November, 1948 orders of detention under Madras Act 1 of 1947 were passed by His Excellency the Governor of Madras under section 2(1) of the Act directing the detention of the applicants in the Central Jail, Vellore. The grounds of detention were served on these applicants on the 24th December, 1948, and they submitted their representations to the Government on 7th January, 1949. The matter does not seem to have received the attention of the Advisory Council, and the Government has not yet passed final orders under section 3(5) of the Act.

The grounds of detention of the applicants in all the cases are substantially the same. The learned advocate for the applicants contended that His Excellency the Governor of Madras had no power to pass an order of detention under section 2(1), as His Excellency had already delegated the powers conferred on the Provincial Government by section 2(1)(a) of the Act to the District Magistrates or the Commissioner of Police, Madras as evidenced by G.O. No. Ms. 907 dated 21st March, 1947, and that the proper authority to have passed an order of detention under the Act was the Commissioner of Police, Madras and not His Excellency the Governor of Madras. Secondly, it was argued that the grounds of detention are vague and indefinite, and that, in any event, the activities of the petitioners which were outside the Province of Madras should not have been taken into consideration in arriving at the satisfaction under the Act that they were acting or about to act in a manner prejudicial to public safety or the maintenance of public Order.

Section 15 of Madras Act 1 of 1947 empowers the Provincial Government by order to direct that any power or duty conferred upon the Provincial Government be exercised or discharged by any officer or authority subordinate to the Provincial Government. One of the powers exercisable by the Provincial Government under the Act is the power to pass an order of detention under section 2(1) of the Act. G.O. No. Ms. 907, dated 21st March, 1947, empowered the District Magistrates and Commissioner of Police, Madras, within their respective jurisdictions to exercise the power conferred on the Provincial Government by section 2(1)(a) of the Act. It is in these terms:

"In exercise of the powers conferred by section 15 of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947 (Madras Act 1 of 1947), His Excellency the Governor of Madras hereby directs that the powers conferred on the Provincial Government by section 2(1)(a) of the said Act shall be exercised also by all the District Magistrates and the Commissioner of Police, Madras, within their respective jurisdictions.

(By Order of His-Excellency the Governor)."

The contention urged on behalf of the applicants is that when once a transfer of the power was effected by virtue of the power of delegation conferred under section 15 upon the Provincial Government, the Provincial Government had no further power to exercise that particular power which has been so delegated, and in support of this proposition a passage from the judgment of the Judicial Committee in Emperor v. Sibnath Banerji1, was relied on. Referring to sub-section (5) of section 2 of the Defence of India Act, the