( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to classify the petitioner as a detenu in class 1 in accordance with the Provisions of M. P. Detention Order, 1971.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has been detained in the Sub Jail, Narsingarh, District Rajgarh as a result of an order dated 27-11-1975 passed by the District Magistrate, shajapur, respondent No. 1, under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. There is no dispute that no order is specifically passed regarding the classification of the petitioner as a detenu on account of which he is presumed to have been placed in Class II in accordance with the proviso under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the M. P. Detention Order, 1971 and that he is being so treated.

( 3 ) THE petition alleges that the detenu aged about 57 years, is a Law Graduate of 1945 and has been a practising Advocate of this Court with headquarters at shajapur, ever since the year 1947. One son of the detenu is also an Advocate like him while the other is an Engineering Graduate. The detenu claims a high social status having been President of the Municipal Council, Shajapur from 1962 to 1964; Chairman of Shajapur District Land Development Bank from 1963 to 1967; Director and Member of the Executive of M. P. State Land development Bank, Bhopal from 1967 to 1974; Director of District and development Bank, Shajapur and Shajapur Vipnan Sanstha. In addition the detenu has an irrigated farm of 30 bighas with his own tractor and agricultural appliances. The detenu being aged is a victim of failing eye-sight. The detenu is also a Director for the last six years of a concern publishing a daily newspaper from Indore. It is further alleged that the petitioner on being so detained earlier in the month of July, 1975 was classified as a detenu and placed in Class I, while detained in Bherugarh Central Jail. It is further alleged that in accordance with the directions contained in a circular issued by the Inspector General of prisons, the Jailor of Sub Jail, Narsingarh, respondent No. 2, can also treat the detenu in Class I since the circular requires all doctors and lawyers etc, to be so treated. None of these facts stated in the petition have been denied in the return filed on behalf of the respondents.

( 4 ) THE return filed on behalf of the respondents is no doubt unusual. Without controverting any of the averments made in the petition, it has been stated therein that the past activities of such a detenu being against the society, it is neither permissible nor equitable to classify the detenu in the higher class. It is then stated that according to Rules 376 and 430 of the Jail Manual, the detenu cannot be treated as belonging to a superior social status on account of his past activities. It is nowhere stated in the return, nor is it the respondents' case that the detenu has been denied class I, not being found entitled thereto by the authority concerned on consideration of all the relevant facts men-Honed in sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the M. P. Detention Order, 1971. ( 5 ) SECTION 5 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 gives the power for regulating place and conditions of detention of persons detained under that act. In exercise of this power, the State- Government has made the M- P. Detention Order, 1971, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of the M. P. Detention Order, 1971 lays down that this order shall apply to every detenu who is detained anywhere in Madhya Pradesh under the provisions of the Maintenance of internal Security Act, 1971, subject only to any direction or order of the Central government. It is common ground before us that the provisions of this order fully apply to the present detenu. Relevant portion of Rule 4 thereof, is as follows:--

"4. Classification and authority directing the classification-- (1)Detenus shall be divided into two classes, Class I and II, according to the state of their health and their education, stat