BALMUKAND versus DIST. MAGISTRATE, DELHI & ANOTHER

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 58 · Decided: 17-08-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAGHUBAR DAYAL · Disposal: Granted

Judgment (excerpt)

BAL MU KAND 
v. 
DIST. MAGISTRATE, DELHI & ANOTIIER 
August 17, 1964 
(RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. R. MUDHOLKAR, ANDS. M. SIKRI JJ.} 
Defence of India Rules, 1962, r. 30A.:._Dctention-Review before 
expiry of six months-Whether reckoned from detention order or from 
confirmation of detmtion order. 
· 
The petitioner whcoe detention order was is.'1Jed by the respondent on 
February 25, 1963 under r. 30(l)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 
A 
B 
filed a petition under Art. 32 of the Coootitution for a writ of habeas 
corpus. The detention order was confirmed by the Administrator on 
c 
March 26, 1963. 
The Administrator reviewed the order on September 
25, 1963 and on March 11, 1962, each time decidina to continue the 
detention order. 
The petitioner contended that the detention order bad 
to be reviewed by the Administrator before the expiry of six months 
from the date of the detention order, while the respondents contention 
was that the period of •ix months for the purpose of the review of the 
detention order was to be reckoned from the date on which the Adm!· 
niatrator confirmed the detention order. 
D 
HELD :. The review of a detention order made by an officer em· 
powered by the State Government or the Administrator ..,., to be al 
intervals o( not more than six months from the date of the detention 
order in the first instan¢e aDd from the <bto of ucb 111booq- order of 
the reviewing authority for the detention to ocntinue. 
[630]. 
Biren Dutta v. Tiu Chief Commissioner of Tripura, (Cr. App. Nos. 
37-91 of 1964 decided July 23, 1964), referred to. 
E 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Habeas Corpus Petition No. 85 of 
1964 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for enforcement af 
Fundamental Rights. 
Bawa Gurcharan Singh and Harbans Singh, for the petitioner. 
F 
S. V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor-General and R. N. Sach-
they, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Raghubar Dayal J. 
Balmukand alias 
Balu has pre-
sented this writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for the G 
issue of a writ of habeas corpus. He is detained under a detention 
order issued by the District Magistrate, Delhi, on February 25, 
1963 under r. 30(l)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 
1962, 
hereinafter called_the rules. 
The District Magistrate was 
em-
powered to issue such orders, by the Administrator. The petitioner 
was arrested on February 27, 1963. The order of the Magistrate H 
was· confirmed by the Administrator of the Union Territory of 
Delhi on March 26. 1963. 
The Administrator reviewed 
the 
•• 
.. 
• 
!' . 
I 
• 
} 
.BALMUKAND v. OT. MAGISTRATE (Raghu/Jar Dayal/.) 
59" 
A order on September 25, 1963 and on March 11, 1964, and each 
time decided that the detention order should be continued. The 
orders passed on review·were communicated to the petitioner, each 
time. 
The validity of the detention order is not questioned for the 
petitioner. The facts noted above are also not disputed. It is 
B contended for the petitioner that the detention order had to be· 
reviewed by the Administrator before the expiry of six months 
from the date .of the detention order i.e., February 25, 1963. On 
behalf of the respondents it has been urged by the learned. Addi-
tional Solicitor General that the period of six months for the pur-
e pose of the review of the detention order is to be reckoned from 
the date· on which the Administrator confinned the detention 
order i.e., the 26th of March 1963 and not from the date of the 
detention order. It is also urged that the order of confirmation 
itself should be taken as the first order of review as such an order 
is mad.e under the provisions of r. 30A of the rules which deals 
D with review of detention orders. We are of opinion that the con-
tention for the petitioner is sound. 
Sub-rule (I) of r. 30A provides that in that rule 'detention 
order' means an order made under cl. (b) of sub-r. (I) of r. 30. 
$\lb-1'\lle ( 4) mentions the authorities which have to review the 
detention order made by an officer empowered by the State Gov-
E ernment or the Administrator. The Administrator is the autho-
rity to review the order when-made by an officer empowered by 
him to make a detention order under r. 30(l)(b). Sub-rule (5) 
eqjoins that the officer empowered by the State Government or the 
Administrator to make the detention order spa!! forthwith report 
the fact of his making tlie detention order to the reviewing autho-
F ·rity or, as the case may be, to the Administrato

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.