( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 491 (a) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner challenges the legality of his brother Santokhsingh's detention under an order passed by the District Magistrate, Raipur, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 30 of the Defence of india Rules, 1962 read with the Government of Madhya Pradesh Home department Order No. 33-4314/i-X (W)62, dated the 20th November, 1962.

( 2 ) ALTHOUGH a number of grounds have been set out in the petition, the only ground which was pressed before us at the time of the hearing, was that the district Magistrate had not, at any time after the amendment of Rule 30 of the defence of India Rules under Notification No. G. S. Rule 1818, dated 28-l2-1962, been authorised to exercise on behalf of the State Government the power to detain any person with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the life of the community.

( 3 ) IT is not disputed that prior to its amendment in December, 1962 the first paragraph of Rule 30 did not contain the words 'or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community'. The power conferred on the state Government by Rule 30 (1) (b) as it originally stood was delegated by the state Government on 20-11-1962 to all District Magistrates. The question which arises for consideration is whether the delegation by the State Government of its power under Rule 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules for detaining persons for any of the purposes mentioned in Rule 30, as it stood on the date of the delegation, (i. e. on 20-11-1962) would include within its scope the power to detain any person for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community, even though this power was for the first time conferred on the State Government by amendment of Rule 30 if the Defence of India Rules in December, 1962. The answer to this question depends on whether the delegation of its powers under a particular Rule by the State Government can be deemed to cover the delegation of such powers as might thereafter be brought into existence by amendment of the Rule. The answer to this question was given in the negative by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Emperor v. Rayangouda lingangouda, AIR 1944 Bom 259. That ease was sought to be distinguished from the one before us, on the ground that the question which arose for consideration in that case related to an entirely new power, which had for the first time been conferred on the Provincial Government by an amendment of Rule 26. Rule 26 (5b) (b) as it formerly stood did not include any Rule in terms giving power to "order any person to appear before any named person, nor did it include any penalty for the breach of such an order, It was contended that such is not the case here. The power to detain a person under Clause (b) of Rule 30 (1) of the Defence of India rules had already been vested by the State Government on the District magistrates within their respective jurisdictions. It was submitted that all that was done by the amendment of Rule 30 in December, 1962 was to add one more ground, to those already provided for, on which the detention of a person could be ordered we are of the opinion that this argument is without any substance. A power must necessarily be circumscribed by the conditions under which and the grounds on which it can be exercised. The power to order the detention of a person on the grounds mentioned in Rule 30 (1) as it stood prior to the amendment, was necessarilyenlarged when Rule 30 was amended in such a manner as to permit the detention of a person on an additional ground, namely with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community. The District Magistrate cou