P.L. LAKHANPAL versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 114 · Decided: 07-03-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

P.L.LAKHANPAL 
A 
v. 
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
[M. H!DAYATULLAH, J. M. SHELAT AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
March 7, 1967 
B 
Defence of India Rules, 1962, Rules 30(1)(b) and 30A(9)-Review 
of detention order-if quasi-judicial function-opportunity to detenu to 
niake representation. 
The petitioner was arrested and detained by an order dated Decem-
ber 10, 1965 under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. 
On June 11, 1966, he was served with an order of the Central Govern-
C 
ment under Rule 30A(9) to the effect that after a review of the deten-
tion order, it had been decided to continue his detention. Writ petitions 
filed b}' the petitioner challenging these 
two orders on various grounds 
were dismissed. 
On December 
2, 1966, he was served with another 
order ~der Rule 30A(9) statinl! that the detention order h~d been fur-
ther reVIewed and upon such reVIew the Government had decided that the 
detention should continue. The petitioner challenged this order by the 
present writ petition on the ground, i'nter alia, that it was passed in dis-
D 
regard of the duty of the Government to act judicially, implicit in the 
power conferred on it under Rule 30A(9) to continue detention, both 
the function to review and the decision thereon being judicial or quasi-
judicial. 
It was contended on behalf of the respondent (i) that the order of 
detention being a purely executive order, an order of review under Rule 
30A(9) of the very circums•ances on which the detention order 
was 
E 
made and subsequent circumstances would also be an executive order; 
and (ii) that the impugned order was passed 
after considering various 
materials against the petitioner. 
HELD, allowing the pe'ition : (i) The function 
entrusted to the 
authority under Rule 30A(9), as distinguished from the power under 
Rule 30( I) (b), is quasi-judicial and the decision which it has to anive 
at is a quasi-judicial decision. 
F 
To say that because a function is in its inception executive in charac-
ter, it retains the executive character throughout would not be correct. 
Besides, the function under Rule 30(1) (b) and that under Rule 30A(9) 
is not one and the same. 
The former is completed as soon as an order 
of detention is made; the .latter is independent of the former and is to be 
exercised after detention has gone on for a period of six months. Whereas 
the function under Rule 30( I) (b) is executive, 
the one under Rule 
G 
30A(9) ·is quasi-judicial and 
therefore in exercising 
it the rules 
of 
natural justice have to be complied with. [123 D-FJ 
(ii) It was admitted that the pe•itioner was not given 
any oppor-
tunity of representing his cas.e or to coi;rect or contradi9t the evidence on 
which the· Government admittedly rehed before passing the order of 
December 2, 1966. There was therefore 
a breach of principles of 
natural justice and the order of continuation of detention 
was illegal 
H 
and must be quashed. [123 F-0; 124 C-DJ 
Sadhu Singh v. Delhi Admlnistratio11, [1966] 1 S.C.R. 243, dissented 
from. 
A 
ll 
c 
n 
F 
G 
. II 
LAKHANPAL v. UNION (She/at, I.) 
115 
P. L. Lakhanpal v. Tht Union of India and Anr., [1967] 1 S.C.R. 433, 
P. L. Lakhanpal v. The Union of India and another, [1966] Supp. S.C.R. 
209, Board of Education v. Rice, (1911] A.C. 182; Local Government 
Board v. Arlidge, [1915] A.C. 120 at p. 132; Province of Bombay v. 
Kusaldas S. Advani, [1950] S.C.R. 621, 725; Nagendra Nath Bora, 
v. 
The Commissioner of Hills Division, [1958] S.C.R. 1240; 
Radheshyam 
Khare v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1959] S.C.R. 1440; Gullapalli 
Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport 
Corporation. 
[1959] Supp. I S.C.R. 319; Shivji Nathubhai v. The 
Union of India, 
[1960] 2 S.C.R. 775; Board of High School and Intermediate Education, 
U.P. v. Ghanshyam, [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 36; and R. Johnson cl Co. 
(Builders) Ltd. v. Minister of Health, [1947] 2 All E.R. 395, referred 
to. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 258 of 1966. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the 
enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. 
The petitioner appeared in person. 
R. H. Dhebar, R. N. Sachthey, and S. S. Javali, for the res-
pondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shelat, J. The petitioner was arrested by an order dated 
December 10, 1965 under Rule 30\l)(b) of the Defence of 
India Rules, 1962 and was detained in Central Jail, Tebar, New 
Delhi. On the 24th December, 1965, he filed writ petition N

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