Somnath Iyer, J.- In these applications made under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction that the detenues shall be set at liberty, it was mentioned to us on Monday by Mr. Ramachandra Rao, the learned Advocate for the detenues, that there has been no review by the authority which was under a duty to make a review within a period of six months from the date of the order of detention, as enjoined by sub-rule (8) of rule 30-A of the Defence of India Rules. Since this question arose for the first time, when Mr. Ramachandra Rao made that submission, Mr. Advocate-General asked for postponement of the proceedings till to-day to enable him to ascertain whether the review enjoined by sub-rule (8) of rule 30-A has or has not been made. The orders of detention in these cases were made by the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary on 8th October, 1964. The argument placed before us by Mr. Ramachandra Rao was that, under sub-rule (8) of rule 30-A a review was imperative before the expiry of six months from the date of the order of detention. That period of six months having expired, according to Mr. Ramachandra Rao, on 8th April, 1965, he contended that the detenues can no longer be continued in detention. Mr. Advocate-General mentions to us to-day that there has till now been no review of the orders of detention under sub-rule (8) of rule 30-A of the Defence of India Rules. Mr. Advocate-General did not contend before us that the interval of six months specified in sub-rule (8) of rule 30-A does not commence from the date of the orders of detention but commences from some other date, such as the date on which the detenues were indeed arrested or the date on which there was a confirmation of the orders of detention by the Government under the provisions of sub-rule (6) of rule 30-A. In our opinion Mr. Advocate-General is right in not maintaining any such argument before us. It is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in Balamukund v. District Magistrate, Delhi and another1 that the interval of six months to which sub-rule (8) of rule 30-A refers is an interval which commences from the date on which the order of detention was made under sub-rule (4). It is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in Balamukund v. District Magistrate, Delhi and another1 that the interval of six months to which sub-rule (8) of rule 30-A refers is an interval which commences from the date on which the order of detention was made under sub-rule (4). That being so, and since there has been no obedience to the provisions of sub-rule (8) by reason of there being no review of the orders of detention within an interval of six months referred to in that sub-rule, the continuance in detention of the detenues on whose behalf these applications have been made to us is illegal and they are entitled to be set at liberty. We make an order accordingly. S.V.S. ----- Petitions allowed.