( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 491 Cr. P. C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution of india alleging that the detention of the applicant under Rule 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India rules, 1962 is illegal. Several grounds were taken when the petition was presented but many of them have now become without any force because of the decision of the Supreme Court and other circumstances. The only contention pressed by learned counsel for the applicant was that the case of the applicant was not reviewed according to the provisions of Rule 30a (9) of the same Rules.

( 2 ) THE facts which are necessary for the decision of this point are that the detention order against the applicant was passed by the State Government on the 9th of November, 1962. The applicant was, in the enforcement of that order, arrested on the 10th of November, 1962. The applicant made a representation against his detention and on the 31st of January, 1953 this representation was rejected. While rejecting this representation the whole case of the applicant was reconsidered and a decision taken that his detention order ought to be continued. The communication to the applicant merely stated that his representation had been rejected. Subsequently his case was again re viewed and again a decision was taken that his detention was to be continued. By a communication dated the 29th of July, 1963 information was sent to the applicant. In this situation there was no information sent to the applicant stating that on the 31st of January, 1963, his case had been reviewed and a decision taken that this detention order was to continue. He was, therefore, unaware of the review of his case on the 31st of January, 1963. In these circumstances a ground was taken that the review of his case having taken place more than six months after the date of his detention, the provisions of Sub-rule (9) of Rule 30a had not been complied with and the detention was illegal. Sub-rule (9) aforesaid is as follows: "every detention order made by the Central Government or the State Government shall be reviewed at Intervals of not more than six months by the Government who made the order and upon such review that Government shall decide whether the order should be continued or cancelled. "

( 3 ) WHAT has to be seen in such cases therefore is whether the Government had, in fact, within that period of not more than six months reviewed the case and come to a decision whether the order of detention was to continue or was to be cancelled.

( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by Prem Kumar, Deputy Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh stated In para 7, among other things: "the case of Shri Nandan Singh was also reviewed earlier than July 27, 1963 on January 31, 1963. At the time of this review his representation dated November 15, 1962 was also considered and the same was rejected and he was informed accordingly. "

( 5 ) THIS confirmation therefore amounted to this that on the 31st of January, 1963, the case of the applicant was reviewed and a decision taken. Apart from this review, the representation of the applicant was also considered at the same time and this was also rejected. The information which was sent to the applicant was with regard to the rejection of his representation and not with regard to the review of his case. We have looked into the original file relating to the case of the applicant and we have found that on the 31st of January, 1963 there was a full review of the case of the applicant and a definite decision was taken that his detention was to continue. Upon these facts there can be no doubt that the case of the applicant was reviewed on the 31st of January, 1963 and also on the 29th of July, 1963. Thus there was a review each time at intervals of not more than six months.

( 6 ) THERE is no provision of law directing the State Government to communicate the result of such review to the detenu and therefore it cannot be said that on the mere ground that no sp