Skip to content


Gopalkrishnan Vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Writ No. 89-D of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1967P& H406; 1967CriLJ1183
ActsDefence of India Rules, 1962 - Rule 30
AppellantGopalkrishnan
RespondentAdministrator, Union Territory of Delhi and anr.
Appellant Advocate N.C. Kochhar, Adv.
Respondent Advocate S.S. Chadha, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredKhacheru Ram v. District Magistrate. Delhi
Excerpt:
- .....procedure code for a writ of habeas corpus. he was detained under rule 30 of the defence of india rules by an order dated 28th december, 1964. of the administrator of the union territory of delhi, which was reviewed by the administrator under rule 30-a (8) of the rules and confirmed by him on 31st may, 1965, the order of detention having been made with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. the petitioner alleged that his detention was mala fide and arbitrary. he was a member of the communist party of india and working in the central office of the party and never committed any act prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. on the date of his arrest, that is, 30th december. 1964, a large number of the members of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

J.S. Bedi, J.

1. The petitioner Gopal Krishnan has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code for a writ of habeas corpus. He was detained under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules by an order dated 28th December, 1964. of the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi, which was reviewed by the Administrator under Rule 30-A (8) of the Rules and confirmed by him on 31st May, 1965, the order of detention having been made with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

2. The petitioner alleged that his detention was mala fide and arbitrary. He was a member of the Communist Party of India and working in the Central Office of the Party and never committed any act prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the date of his arrest, that is, 30th December. 1964, a large number of the members of the Communist Party were arrested and detained throughout India and on 1st January, 1965, Shri Gulzari Lal Nanda, Union Home Minister made a statement over the All India Radio and subsequently in the Parliament justifying these arrests and also making wild and malicious allegations against the Communist Party. According to the petitioner, his detention was inspired and directed by Shri G L. Nanda, and the detaining authority did not apply its mind before ordering his detention which amounted to mala fide on the part of that authority. He alleged that his activities posed a danger to the continued Congress Rule and his continued detention was calculated to punish him for his lawful activities. The conditions required under Clause (4) of Rule 30 of the Rules were also not specified in the detention order. Some other pleas were also taken which are not strictly relevant for purposes of decision of this petition.

3. On a notice having been issued to the respondents on 18th October, 1965, Shri V. Viswanathan, Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi, submitted his affidavit dated 5th November, 1965. He stated that the petitioner took active part in public life and there was ample material relating to his activities which showed that they were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order It is not necessary to cite any judgment on this point; if any is needed reference may be made to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, Writ Petn. No. 79 of 1965 decided by the Supreme Court on 7-9-1965 :(AIR 1966 SC 740) : Ananda Nambiar v. Chief Secy of the Govt. of Madras Writ Petn. No. 47 of 1965 decided by the Supreme Court on 27-10-1965 (AIR 1966 SC 657) and Full Bench judgment of this Court in Khacheru Ram v. District Magistrate. Delhi, Cr. Writ No. 7-D of 1965 decided on 6-8-1965 :(AIR 1966 Punj. 399) (FB). The State counsel, however, brought the record of the past activities of the detenu for my inspection and I went through the same. I feel that the detention of the petitioner was justified on the material placed on the record.

4. The other point raised by the petitioner's counsel was that the order passed by the Administrator did not comply with Rule 30 (4) of the Rules inasmuch as no conditions as to maintenance, discipline and punishment of offences and breaches of discipline, were stated in the order. The Administrator, however, submitted that rules had been framed under the above-mentioned provision prescribing conditions of the detention of such detenus and that it was not necessary to specify such conditions in the order of detention. The counsel could not support his argument with any direct authority that if such conditions were omitted from the order of detention, it would become illegal.

5. For the above reasons, I feel that there is no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //