- (1.) C. R. No. 420 (w) of 1965: the power of the State Government to determine the place of detention of the petitioner and conditions as to his maintenance and discipline, under Rule 30, sub-rule (4) of the Defence of India Rules, is the subject-matter of challenge in this Rule. The petitioner says that he is a citizen of India, a political worker and the Secretary of the West Bengal Committee of the Communist Party of India. On October 29 1964, the Government of West Bengal made the following order against the petitioner "whereas the Governor is satisfied that with a view to preventing Sri Promode Das gupta, son of Sri Motilal Das Gupta of 164, Lower Circular Road, and 23, Alimuddin Street, Calcutta, from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India and the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make an order directing that he be detained; now, therefore, the Governor, in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, is pleased hereby to direct that the said person be detained and kept in custody in the Dum Dum Central Jail during the period of such detention. " on the same day, the respondent Deputy Secretary addressed the following letter to the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail: "i am directed by order of the Governor to enclose a copy of this department order No. 5181-HS. dated the 29th October, 1964 issued under rule 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 and to say that the person so directed to be detained shall be treated as a Division I undertrial prisoner under the West Bengal Jail Code. "
(2.) THE petitioner feels aggrieved by his detention at Dum Dum Central Jail and also by the conditions of such detention and has moved this Court for relief. According to the petitioner the Defence of India Act does not confer any power on the State Government to fix a place of detention for a person detained thereunder, which can only be done by Rules properly framed under the Act. Further, according to the petitioner, the respondent Deputy Secretary arbitrarily determined a place of detention for the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail, is illegally keeping him confined in custody in the said jail. Also, according to the petitioner, he is being accorded niggardly treatment in the said custody in respect of conditions of detention, amenities and family allowance. It is contended, on behalf of the petitioner that the order of detention is unlawful and deserves to be quashed.
(3.) THE petitioner made this application from custody and the Superintendent dum Dum Central Jail, forwarded the application to the Registrar, Appellate Side, of this Court. The matter was at first placed before a Division Bench taking criminal matters. Since that Bench was not invested with jurisdiction to deal with matters under Article 226 of the Constitution, the application was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice for orders. By an order, dated March 19, 1965, the learned Chief Justice directed that the matter be placed before the Constitution Bench for disposal. At that stage there was no Advocate appearing for the petitioner. Later on, however, Mr. Arun Prokash Chatterjee, Advocate, entered appearance for the petitioner and prayed for leave to amend the prayers in the petition, which were not in order. The prayer was granted. Thereupon, Mr. Chatterjee amended the prayers and asked for a Writ of Certiorari for the quashing of the order of detention and for a mandate upon the; respondents directing them to forbear from enforcing the detention and to withdraw the detention order dated October 29, 1964. On the amended prayers this Rule was issued.;