ORDER

Wanchoo, J. - This is an application by Swami Hariharanand Saraswati alias Karpatriji u/s 491, Criminal P.C., against an order of de-detention passed against him by the District Magistrate of Benares on 19-2-1948.

2. The order was passed u/s 8(1)(a), U.P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act, No. IV of 1947, under the powers delegated to the District Magistrates in these provinces by a Notification of the Provincial Government on 1-8-1917. The relevant portion of the order, is in these terms:

Whereas I am satisfied with respect to Hariharanand Saraawati alias Karpatriji that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make an order directing that the said Karpatriji be detained.... I...direct that the said Karpatriji be detained in the custody of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Benares, for a period not exceeeding six months with effect from 19-2- 1948....

3. On 21-2-1948, the District Magistrate prepared the grounds and particulars to be communicated to the applicant and those grounds and particulars, which led to his detention, were communicated to the applicant on 23-2-1948 The relevant part of the notice u/s 5 of the Act is in the following terms:

Whereas yon have been making speeches in other districts which are likely to be an incitement to acts of violence and disturbance of the public tranquillity, and whereas I am satisfied that you Hariharanand Saraswati alias Karpatriji are likely to make such objectionable speeches or act in a manner that is likely to cause breach of the peace or endanger public safety, in Benares.

4. Prima facie, therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act iv of 1947 have been complied with in this case. It has, however, been urged on behalf of the applicant that, for various reasons with which I shall deal one by one, the detention of the applicant is illegal or, at any rate, improper and the applicant should be ordered to be released u/s 491, Criminal P.C.

5. The first point that has been urged is that the delegation by the Provincial Government u/s 11 of the Act of its own power u/s 3(1)(a), to the District Magistrates was ultra vires inasmuch as the Provincial Government did not divest itself of its power to act u/s 3(1)(a). The Notification in question delegating the power to the District Magistrates in these provinces shows that the powers of the Provincial Government u/s 3 (1)(a), were also being conferred on the District Magistrates. The contention is that Section 11 does not provide that the Provincial Government can reserve to itself the power while delegating it to an authority subordinate to it. An exactly similar argument was raised before this Court in Daya Shanker Malaviya Vs. Emperor, AIR 1948 All 321 and it was negatived by me. I need not, therefore, reiterate the reasons which led me to come to the conclusion that there was nothing in the words of Section 11 of the Act which could lead to the inference that before the Provincial Government could delegate its power u/s 3(1)(a) to the District Magistrates, it must divest itself of that power. It is now being urged that there is nothing in that section which shows that the Provincial Government can keep the power in itself and at the same time delegate it to an authority subordinate to it. There is no doubt that the words of Section 11 say nothing one way or the other on this point. But at the same time, there is no rule of law or of natural justice which requires that before an authority which has the power to delegate can delegate its function to another, it must divest itself completely of the power so delegated. Learned Counsel for the applicant, however, in this connection, relied upon the case in Blackpool Corporation v. Loker (1948) All. E.R. 85. That case was dealing with the powers delegated by the Minister for Health to the Blackpool Corporation under Regulation 51 (1)(5) of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939. The p