JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - These petitions under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the orders dated August 1, 1965, which are similar in nature passed by the Government of India under rule 30, sub-rule (i), clause (b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, directing the detention of the petitioners, raise common questions of law and facts and can be conveniently disposed of together. 2. The undisputed facts which are relevant to the questions in controversy are stated briefly. 3. The petitioners are active members of the Communist Party in India. They were first arrested and detained in various jails in the State of Uttar Pradesh in pursuance to the orders passed in the name of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh under rule 30(1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules. In the case of some of these petitioners the order of detention was reviewed by the authorities and their detention was continued. 4. A number of writ petitions were filed in this Court challenging the order of detention passed by the State Government under the Defence of India Rules inter alia on the assertions that the State Government was not satisfied about the requirements of the detention orders. One of such petitions filed by one Sri Tegh Bahadur Singh came up for hearing before the Court on July 26, 1965 and Sri B.P. Joshi, Home Secretary, and Sri R.K. Kaul, Deputy Home Secretary, who had filed affidavits saying that the Chief Minister of U. P. was satisfied about the requirements of the detention orders passed by the State Government, were summoned for examination. 5. On July 31, 1965, the State Government cancelled its order of detention relating to these petitioners; On August 1, 1965, however, the impugned orders were passed by the Central Government directing the detention of the petitioners which were served on them and since then they arc again under detention. 6. There is some controversy between the parties as to whether these orders were served while the petitioners were already in jail in pursuance to the order of the State Government or when they had been released after its cancellation. 6. There is some controversy between the parties as to whether these orders were served while the petitioners were already in jail in pursuance to the order of the State Government or when they had been released after its cancellation. It is, however, obvious from the assertions made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respective opposite party No. 1 in each of these petitions that even if the order of the Central Government was not served on the petitioners while they were in jail custody it was served within a few minutes of their release and they were re-arrested and put back in jail. 7. In each of these petitions the order of detention has been challenged on several grounds but we propose to examine only those which have been canvassed at the bar. 8. Mr. Asif Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioners, has urged that the impugned order is invalid firstly because in the face of the order of release passed by the State Govt, the Central Government had no power to order the detention of the petitioners, secondly it is a mala fide order having been passed in a colourable exercise of power, thirdly its service on the petitioners while they were already in jail is illegal and finally rule 30 (i) (b) is invalid being inconsistent with Section 3(2) sub-clause 15 of the Defence of India Act, 1962. 9. It is contended that no affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 3, Sri Gulzari Lal Nanda, Home Minister, Union of India, and the affidavits filed on behalf of the contesting respondents have not been verified in accordance with the provisions of order 19 C.P.C. and Chapter IV of the High Court Rules and therefore they cannot be taken into consideration. Learned counsel has urged that while making the impugned order the detaining authority did not take into account the provisions of Section 44 of the Act which provided that any authority or person acting in pursuance of this Act shall interfere with the ordinary avocations of life and the enjoyment of property as little as may be consonant with the purpose of ensuring the public safety and interest and the defence of India and civil defence. 10. 10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Union of India in case of these cases the allegation that the order is malafide or has been passed in collusion with the State Government has been denied. It has been averred therein that on the material placed before the Central Government the Central Government was satisfied that with a view to preventing the petitioners from acting in a manner prejudicial to the defence of India, civil defence, public safety and maintenance of public order it was necessary to detain them and further that on the material placed before the Central Government it was clear that the petitioners activities even prior to their detention by the State Government were such that if the petitioners were not detained they were likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the defence of India and civil defence, the public safety and the maintenance of public order and the allegation that the order of detention was passed by the Central Government for validating any illegalities or any invalid order in collusion with the State Government is denied. 11. In none of these petitions there is any personal allegation against Sri Gulzari Lal Nanda, Home Minister, Union of India, and therefore, in our opinion it was not necessary for him to file any counter affidavit. 12. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has contended that as the Central Government and the State Government enjoyed concurrent powers under the rules there is nothing in law to prevent the Central Government from exercising its power of detention even in such a case where the State Government after having exercised its power has thought it fit to release the detenu. Learned counsel contends that rule 30(1) (b) is not inconsistent with Section 3 of the Act and that an order of detention can be validly served on a person who is already in jail. 13. It is true that the verification clause in some of the counter affidavits filed on behalf of Union of India is not happily worded. That in our opinion is only a minor irregularity which cannot prevent the Court from taking into consideration the averments made in the counter affidavits. 14. 13. It is true that the verification clause in some of the counter affidavits filed on behalf of Union of India is not happily worded. That in our opinion is only a minor irregularity which cannot prevent the Court from taking into consideration the averments made in the counter affidavits. 14. In Godavari Parulekars case (1964 Supreme Court, 1128) it was urged that the order of detention was invalid inter alia, because it did not show that Section 44 of the Defence of India Act, 1962, was kept in mind when it was made. Dealing with this contention the Supreme Court observed- "Although Section 44 of the Defence of India Act provides that there should be as little interference with the ordinary avocations of life as possible when orders are made under the Act or the Rules, that does not mean that a detention order must show on the face of it that the State Government had considered the various clauses of R. 30(1) of the Defence of India Rules and had come to the conclusion that the only way in which . the purposes of the Act and the Rules could be carried out was by the use of clause (b) of R. 30(1). When the order says that it is necessary to make an order of detention in order to restrain the prejudicial activities mentioned therein it means that that was the only way which the State Government thought was necessary to adopt in order to meet the situation. It will then be for the detenu to show that the order had gone beyond the needs of the situation and was therefore contrary to Section 44." 15. No allegation has been made in the petitions challenging the validity of the detention on the basis of contravention of Section 44 of the Act. The contention raised by the learned counsel on I this score therefore must be rejected. 16. The other contentions raised by the learned counsel are covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court to which one of us was a party, in the case of Anand Madhav Trivedi (Criminal Misc. case No. 2621 of 1965) which too was based on almost identical allegations. 16. The other contentions raised by the learned counsel are covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court to which one of us was a party, in the case of Anand Madhav Trivedi (Criminal Misc. case No. 2621 of 1965) which too was based on almost identical allegations. The Division Bench rejected the contentions and held that the detention order is within the scope of the Act having been passed by the Central Government in the bona fide exercise of its power and therefore valid. Agreeing with the dictum laid down in Anand Madhav Trivedis case we hold that the contentions raised by the learned counsel do not bear any substance and the impugned orders are valid and legal. 17. In the result we dismiss these petitions.