Anantanarayana Ayyar, J.- The petitioner, Vemoori Subba Rao, is a detenu in the Central Jail, Visakhapatnam, being detained under Rale 30(1)(b)of the Defence of India Rules. He has filed this petition with a prayer as follows: “........that writ of certiorari may please be issued directing the State Government to supply bi-weekly ‘Jana Sakthi’ and all the books of petitioner’s choice and the Rules contained in G.O. Ms. No. 1190, dated 28th October, 1964, may please be held ultra vires.” It is beyond doubt or dispute that there is an Order of Government under which he is subject to jail rules contained in G.O.Ms. No. 1190, dated 28th October, 1964, except rule 26 and rule 29. In his affidavit, he has contended as follows: “(1) Since I am denied the access to legal advice, it is repugnant to the mandatory provision of Constitution and thereby the rules contained in G.O. Ms. No. 1190, dated 28th October, 1964 are illegal and, therefore, they are liable to be set aside. A detenu is legally entitled to obtain legal advice although he is detained under the provisions of Defence of India Rules............ (2) That I requested the Jail authorities to supply me”Jana Sakthi“weekly at my own cost but the Superintendent, Central Jail, rejected my request, and when I demanded the rejection order to be furnished in writing, that request too was turned down. I am entitled to get the said Bi-weekly at my own cost as it is a Journal which is not banned by the Government and to deprive me of the said journal amounts to contravention of Rules contained in G.O. Ms. No. 1190, dated 26th October, 1964. (3) That I have requested to supply me the books which are not banned and of my own taste but Jail authorities are furnishing only those books which are recommended by the C.I.D. Branch. I am entitled to receive all those books which are not banned by the Government and since the authorities concerned are not allowing me to purchase the books of my choice provided they are not banned, their action is illegal and, therefore, they must be directed to allow me to receive the books as stated above.” The sole respondent to this petition is the Government of Andhra Pradesh and it filed a counter-affidavit sworn to by an Assistant Secretary to the Government. Subsequently, an affidavit was also filed by the Superintendent of Central Jail, Visakhapatnam. We shall refer to the respective allegations in the affidavit and the counter-affidavit when dealing with the contentions. Legal advice.-The contention of the petitioner in para. 1 of the affidavit has already been extracted earlier in this order. In the counter-affidavit by the Assistant Secretary, it is stated as follows: “I submit the petitioner cannot demand that he must be provided with legal advice. Moreover the petitioner is represented by an Advocate and so he cannot now complain that he is deprived of legal advice. The petitioner being a detenu cannot invoke constitutional protections afforded to free citizens.” In fact, the petitioner is actually represented in these proceedings by an Advocate of this Court namely, Shri P. Ramachandra Rao and has, therefore, got benefit of legal advice. So, this contention is of no practical importance or value. Even otherwise, in law, the contention is untenable. Clause 26 of G.O. Ms. 1190, which was framed under the Preventive Detention Act, runs as follows: “26. Legal advices: (1) Detenu shall be allowed all reasonable facilities to obtain legal advice....................” But in the order passed by the Government, regarding the petitioner’s detention extending to him the provision of G.O.Ms. No. 1190, the benefit of clause 26 of that Government Order was excluded thereby denying to him the right to legal advice. Article 22 of the Constitution runs as follows: “22. (1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he bedenied the right to consult, and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. (2) .................... (3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply.............. (b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention.” Clause (1) of Article 22 is the general provision. The petitioner is detained under law providing for preventive detention that is, Rule 30(1)(b)of the defence of India Rules. Consequently, clause 3(b)of Article 22 applies to him with the result that the provision of clause (1) does not apply to him. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to obtain legal advice and be represented by a legal practitioner as of right is not tenable. Periodical ‘Jana Sakthi’.-The contention of the petitioner in para. Consequently, clause 3(b)of Article 22 applies to him with the result that the provision of clause (1) does not apply to him. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to obtain legal advice and be represented by a legal practitioner as of right is not tenable. Periodical ‘Jana Sakthi’.-The contention of the petitioner in para. 2 of his affidavit has already been extracted in this order. In his counter-affidavit, the Assistant Secretary has stated as follows: “G.O.Ms. No. 1298 (Prisons-B) Department, dated 6th July, 1963 contains the list of newspapers and periodicals which may be supplied to prisoners. The same list is nude applicable to the detenu also under clause 18(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Preventive Detention (Regulation of Place and Conditions) Order, 1964............ The Jana Sakthi bi-weekly is not included in this list and, therefore the detenu cannot claim it. Besides, under clause 18(3) of the same order, the Jail Superintendent can refuse any book or periodical which, in his opinion is not suitable to the detenus. Jana Sakthi was started by the Leftists as a political weapon against the Rightists and the ruling Party and has been publishing translations of objectionable documents of the Chinese Communist party and has also been faithfully supporting the Chinese line. Therefore, the Jail Superintendent did not consider it suitable to allow this journal to the detenus.” The Jail Superintendent has stated in his counter-affidavit as follows: “..................I submit that it is true that the petitioner requested me to allow him to purchase and read ‘Jana Sakthi’, a bi-weekly....................I am not exercising any quasi-judicial functions while acting under rule 18(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Preventive D3tention (Regulation of Place and Conditions) Order, 1964. I submit that, after reading several issues of the periodical ‘Jana Sakthi’, I was satisfied the the said periodical contains objectionable and unsuitable material that cannot be allowed to be read by the detenu in question. ‘Jana Sakthi’ was started by the Leftists as a political weapon against the Rightists and the Government of India and Andhra Pradesh. The periodical has been publishing translation of objectionable documents of the Chinese Communist Party and has also been faithfully supporting the Chinese line in its attack on Indian democracy and in its support of occupation of Indian territory. ‘Jana Sakthi’ was started by the Leftists as a political weapon against the Rightists and the Government of India and Andhra Pradesh. The periodical has been publishing translation of objectionable documents of the Chinese Communist Party and has also been faithfully supporting the Chinese line in its attack on Indian democracy and in its support of occupation of Indian territory. The issues of this bi-weekly contain several passages extracted from various journals published by Pro-Peking Communist Parties of other countries, which passages are equally a deliberate attack on Indian democracy, on Indian leadership and on the Indian Nationalist view, regarding the occupation of Indian territory by China. I, therefore, refused to allow this paper to be purchased or received by the petitioner. I had come to my independent conclusion unhampered by the decisions of the Government............I did not think it part of my duty to allow the detenu to continue his contact with this antinationalistic periodical even when he was detained. It struck me that a morbidly anti-national periodical like ‘Jana Sakthi’ was unsuitable for adetenu detained because of his anti-national proclivities.” Clause 18 of G.O.Ms. No. 1190, runs as follows: "(1) Detenus shall be allowed such facilities in regard to library facilities and books as are enjoyed by Class I prisoners. Newspapers shall be supplied to the detenus at their cost." (2) Detenus may receive through post any of the newspapers and periodicals approved in G.O. Ms. No. 1298, Home (Prisons-B), dated the 6th July, 1963, subject to the conditions laid down in sub-clause (3). (3) (a) The books and periodicals shall be received through post and (b) the postal articles containing the books and periodicals shall first be opened by the Superintendent or any person appointed by him for the purpose and (c) the delivery of the books may be refused by the Superintendent if in his opinion, the books and periodicals are not suitable (d) Detenus may also purchase any other book or periodical, provided it is not banned or prescribed by the Government. (4) In addition to newspapers, periodicals and books, which may be received through post any detenu who receives funds from outside may be allowed to purchase, from such funds, newspapers, periodicals and books, subject to the provisions of sub-clause (3). (4) In addition to newspapers, periodicals and books, which may be received through post any detenu who receives funds from outside may be allowed to purchase, from such funds, newspapers, periodicals and books, subject to the provisions of sub-clause (3). (5) Friends and relatives may be permitted to send through post not more than twelve books to each detenu in a week and as many periodicals as desired by a detenu subject to strict censorship and subject to the provisions of sub-clause (3). It is the case of both sides that sub-clause (3) applies to the petitioner, for purposes of convenience in reference, we have marked different portions of sub-clause (3)as (a) to (d). We shall refer to the power and duty given under sub-clause (b) as ‘checking’ and the power and right given under sub-clause (c) as ‘power to withhold.‘ We shall also refer to the complete process involved in portions (b) and (c) of sub-clause (3) as ‘censorship.’ Clause 19 runs as follows: "(19) Withdrawal of benefits: Notwithstanding anything in these rules, it shall be open to the Government to direct that any particular detenu shall not be entitled, for such period as may be specified, to the benefits of interviews, correspondence, books, periodicals and newspapers allowed by clauses 15, 16 and 18." It is obvious from the above clause that the provision in clause 18 confers a benefit on the detenu. He can claim it as of right. Both sides agree that there is no definition of ‘book’, ‘periodical’ and ‘newspaper’ in the law or rules relating to prisons. In section 1 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (Central Act XXV of 1867), the following definitions of ‘book’ and ‘newspaper’ are found: "(1) * * * * * ‘Book’ includes every volume, part or division of a volume, and pamphlet, in any language and every sheet of music, map, chart or plan separately printed;" " (1) * * * * * ‘Newspaper’ means any printed periodical work containing public news or comments on public news; " There is substantially a similar definition of ‘Newspaper’ in section 2(b)of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1955 (Central Act XLV of 1955) as follows: "2. (b) ‘Newspaper’ means any printed periodical work containing public news or comments on public news and includes such other class of printed periodical work as may, from time to time, be notified in this behalf by the Central Government in the Official Gazette;" These Acts do not contain definition of ‘periodical.‘ The meaning given in the Chamber’s Dictionary for ‘Periodical’ is as follows: "A magazine or other publication that appears at stated intervals (not usually including newspapers)." From the provisions in clause 18, it is clear that, for the purpose of that clause periodical is treated as different and distinct from ‘book’ as well as from newspaper and not as included in ‘book.‘ G.O.Ms. No. 1298, dated 6th July, 1963, runs as follows: "The Government accept the recommendation of the Inspector-General of Prisons and accordingly approve............the list of newspapers and periodicals annexed to this order as the integrated list..............................for the purpose of supplying them to the prisoners at their own cost or at Government expense as prescribed under the Rules in force. (2) The Inspector-General of Prisons has also proposed that, out of the list suggested by him some newspapers may be approved for supply free of cost and the rest for supply at prisoner’s cost.... (3).............................................................................. The Government consider that a general order as proposed by the Inspector-General of Prisons is not necessary................" There is an annexure to the Government Order which contained a group of items under heading ‘Dailies,‘ another group under ‘heading’ ‘weeklies’ and a third group under heading ‘periodicals’ (including foreign magazines). We shall refer to periodicals contained in the list as ‘approved periodicals’ and the entire list as ‘approved list’, Obviously, the last group of the annexure was treated as meaning periodicals other than dailies and weeklies. In the Chambers’ Dictionary, the meaning of the word ‘News’ is given as follows: "Tidings; a report of a recent event; something one had not heard before; matter suitable for newspaper readers.........." Jana Sakthi is a bi-weekly publication. In his affidavit the petitioner referred to it as a journal. In his counter-affidavit, the Superintendent referred to it as a periodical. In arguments before us, both sides proceeded on the basis that Jana Sakthi is a periodical for the purpose of clause 18 of G.O. Ms. No. 1190. In his affidavit the petitioner referred to it as a journal. In his counter-affidavit, the Superintendent referred to it as a periodical. In arguments before us, both sides proceeded on the basis that Jana Sakthi is a periodical for the purpose of clause 18 of G.O. Ms. No. 1190. Sub-clause (1) of clause 18 obviously refers to books and newspapers connected with library facilities which are to be supplied by the Jail authorities. That is why it does not say that it is subject to the provisions of sub-clause (3). Sub-clause (2) deals with approved newspapers and periodicals and provides that they may be received through post. Sub-clauses (3) and (4) refers to purchase. Sub-clause (5) refers to books and periodicals which are to be acquired and received by the detenu from friends and relatives. The conditions and provisions mentioned in sub-clause (3.) are made applicable to cases coming under sub-clauses (2), (4) and (5). Portion (a) of sub-clause (3) does not apply to sub-clause (2) which provides that detenus may receive through post. This word ‘may’ in sub-clause (2) indicates that, besides receiving by post, the detenu may receive the articles concerned by way of supply directly i.e. (without being received by post) by the Jail authorities at the cost of the detenu. Portions (b) and (c) of sub-clause (3) would apply if the items were received through post as postal articles; they need not apply if they were supplied by the Jail authorities themselves. Portion (d) of sub-clause (3) need not apply to sub-clause (2) which relates to receipt; for, it is far from likely that the approved list of periodicals include any periodical which had been banned or proscribed by the Government apart from the fact that portion (d) governs purchase and not receipt. The provision in the first sentence of sub-clause (3) is regarding books and periodicals and it makes mandatory that they shall be received through post. The second sentence relates to purchase of ‘book or periodical’. The first sentence contains the words ‘the books and periodicals’ in three places and ‘the books’ in one place. Obviously they must refer to ‘book or periodical’ which is purchased under and described by the second sentence in sub-clause (3) i.e., portion (d). They cannot refer to ‘books’ mentioned in sub-clause (1) and to ‘newspapers and periodicals’ mentioned in sub-clause (2). Obviously they must refer to ‘book or periodical’ which is purchased under and described by the second sentence in sub-clause (3) i.e., portion (d). They cannot refer to ‘books’ mentioned in sub-clause (1) and to ‘newspapers and periodicals’ mentioned in sub-clause (2). The first sentence of sub-clause (3) has to be read as if it comes after the second sentence in that sub-clause. Though in portions (a), (b) and (d) of sub-clause (3), there is reference to ‘books and periodicals’, in portion (c) of that sub-clause there is mention that ‘the delivery of the books may be refused’ and there is no mention that the delivery of the periodicals may be refused. The result is that if the Superintendent checks a postal article and finds that it contains a book he can refuse delivery on the ground that, in his opinion, the book is not suitable but he cannot refuse delivery of a periodical if the item contained in the postal article was a periodical even though he checks it under the mandatory provision in portion (b) and is of opinion that is not suitable. The learned Advocate-General contends that the real intention of the Government under clause 18 is that portion (c) of sub-clause (3) should cover periodicals also and that it was unfortunately omitted by oversight due to defective and inartistic drafting. This contention of the learned Advocate-General is acceptable. It is obvious that, in framing portion (c) of sub-clause (3) of clause 18, the Government must have intended to include periodicals also and that, by over sight or mistake, the words ‘the books’ were mentioned instead of the words “the books and periodicals”. The opening words of sub-clause (3) refer to receipt of books and periodicals. Portion (b) in the first sentence also refers to books and periodicals being checked by the Superintendent. The last portion of the first sentence refers to ‘books and periodicals’ as being in the opinion of the Superintendent not suitable. It is not at all likely that the Government intended that delivery of periodical should not be refused by the Superintendent even if, in his opinion, it was not suitable while he is given power to refuse delivery in the case of books and while he is also given the same power and duty of checking in the case of periodicals as in the case of books. It is of course open to the Government to amend clause 18 of G.O. Ms. No. 1190 if they consider It necessary to invest the Superintendent to withhold periodicals also. In fact, they have made an amendment in G.O.Ms. 1190, dated 28th November, 1964 regarding some other matters by their order that is, in respect of clause 6 and table under clause 3 by passing G.O.Ms. No. 196, dated 3rd February, 1965. The question is whether we can construe clause 18, sub-clause (3) and give effect to it so as to carry out the obvious intention of the Government that portion (c) should govern periodicals also though they omitted to expressly mention periodicals in that portion by obvious mistake or inadvertence. In Caries on Statute Law (Sixth Edition) it is stated as follows (at page l09): “........the general rule is not to import into statutes words which are not to be found there and there are particular purposes for which express language is absolutely indispensable. Word, plainly should not be added by implication into the language of a statute unless it is necessary to do to give the paragraph sense and meaning in its context. ..................................................................................................... But where the alternative lies between either supplying by implication words which appear to have been accidentally omitted, or adopting a construction which deprives certain existing words of all meaning, it is permissible to supply the words................In Re Waine Wright1, Lord Lyndhurst, L.C., said, as to section 33 of the Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833: ‘There is an omission here which it is proper to notice.‘The words are, ‘If any person, protector of a settlement, shall be convicted of treason or felony, or if any person, not being the owner of a prior estate under a settlement, shall be the protector of such settlement and shall be an infant, or if it shall be uncertain whether such last-named person be living or dead, then His Majesty’s High Court of Chancery shall be the protector of such settlement, in lieu of the person who shall be an infant or whose existence cannot the ascertained’-omitting the case of a person convicted of treason or felony. But I think that the omission must be supplied by implication, otherwise no effect can be given to the previous words, ‘if any person, protector of a settlement, shall be convicted of treason or felony’ Now these words cannot be struck out of the Act, and it is much more natural to supply the words, ‘in lieu of the person who shall be convicted,‘than to adopt a construction which would deprive the preceding words of all meaning. The Common Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1853, section 135, enacted that ‘(a) if a debtor have an estate or interest in any stock, funds, annuities, or shares or money............ (c) it shall be lawful for the Court to make such order as to such stock, funds, annuities, shares, and the dividend, interest and annual produce thereof as if the same had been standing in the name of a trustee for such judgment-debtor, (d) but no such order shall prevent the Bank of Ireland from permitting any transfer of such stocks, funds, annuities, and shares or money’.............In Quin v. O’Keefe2, the question arose whether, as this section omitted the word ‘money’ in the second clause, it was competent for the Court to make an order with respect to money. The Court, following In Re Waine Wright1 held that it was competent for them to supply this word by implication, and Lefroy, C.J. said ‘I admit that in section 135 where it is said that it shall be lawful for the Court to make such order, the word money is dropped and that the order is only to be made’ as to such stock, funds, annuities, shares, and the dividend, interest, and annual produce thereof, but in a subsequent part of the section the word ‘money’ is introduced, thus clearly bringing it within the operation of the proviso, and if the proviso is to have any effect at all in respect of it, it must be upon the supposition that it was contemplated as being otherwise included in the body of the section..................Unless, therefore, we insert the word ‘money’ into the enacting part of the section, that section as to money will be completely mugtory................” We have marked portions of section 135 of the Common Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1853, as portions (a), (c) and (d) for convenience in comparison with clause 18(3) of G.O. Ms. No. 1190. No. 1190. In portions (a) and (d) of section 135 ‘money’ is mentioned in addition to stock, funds, etc., but in portion (c) ‘money’ is not mentioned. That is substantially similar to the present sub-clause (3) of clause 18 wherein ‘periodical’ is mentioned in addition to ‘book’ in portions (a) and (d) but is not mentioned in portion (c). We have already shown that unless we insert the word ‘periodical’ into portion (c) in clause 18(3), the provision in that sub-clause as to periodical would became nugatory that is, delivery cannot be refused by the Superintendent even, if by the exercise of his mandatory duty of checking the periodical, he forms an opinion that it is not suitable for the detenu. We find that, in this case, it is justifiable and also necessary to construe portion (c) of sub-clause (3) of clause 18 as if it included ‘periodical’ in addition to ‘book’. The same principle has been mentioned in Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes (11th Edition, 1962) at page 226 under the heading “Obvious Oversights”. At page 265 of the same book, it is indicated as to in what classes of cases omission can not be supplied by Court like cases relating to penal provisions. But, the present case does not come within such provision; for, clause 18 regarding books and newspapers is meant to give a benefit to the detenu and detention itself is only a measure of precaution and not punishment. It is beyond doubt or dispute that ‘Jana Sakthi’ is not banned or proscribed by the Government. Shri P. Ramachandra Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the last sentence of sub-clause (3) of clause 18 vests in the detenu an absolute right which is not affected by the first sentence in that sub-clause and that, therefore, the detenu can as of right purchase ‘Jana Sakthi’ and receive it inside the jail and read it free from censorship by the Superintendent under the first sentence of sub-clause (3). On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General contends that the provision in the second sentence of sub-clause (3) is subject to and governed by the first sentence. In view of what we have pointed out above, this contention of the learned Advocate-General is correct. On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General contends that the provision in the second sentence of sub-clause (3) is subject to and governed by the first sentence. In view of what we have pointed out above, this contention of the learned Advocate-General is correct. He further contends that,in exercise of power given to the Superintendent in the first sentence of sub-clause (3), he can refuse permission to the detenu to purchase ‘Jana Sakthi’ and receive it inside the jail. From the second sentence in sub-clause (3), it is obvious that the detenu has got a right to purchase any book or periodical subject only to the condition that it is not banned or proscribed by the Government and not to any other condition. By purchase, the detenu would acquire a right or title to the book or periodical. But, he does not thereby get a right to receive it within jail or to have it delivered to him in jail unconditionally. The receipt of the book or periodical by the detenu is subject to the right of censorship by the Superintendent under the law and the rules. The Government has power to ban a periodical or book altogether absolutely and as regards all its citizens and this power is derived from and exercised under law which is independent of G.O.Ms. No. 1190. No such law is brought to our notice vesting such a power in the Superintendent. G.O.Ms. No. 1190 does not give expressly a general power to ban a periodical or book even inside the jail of which the Superintendent is in charge. A power to withhold from the detenu a periodical which has been received through post and checked does not include or imply a power to ban in advance, issues of the periodical which have not yet been published or which have not yet been received and checked by the Superintendent. The second sentence of sub-clause (3) of clause 18 only mentions that the detenu may purchase. It does not say that the detenu is entitled to receive the book or the periodical in an unrestricted manner. The receipt by the detenu of a periodical purchased under the second sentence is subject to the provision in the first sentence under which the periodical shall be received through post and shall be checked and liable to be withheld by the superintendent. The receipt by the detenu of a periodical purchased under the second sentence is subject to the provision in the first sentence under which the periodical shall be received through post and shall be checked and liable to be withheld by the superintendent. Sub-clause (3) does not contemplate or require permission of the Superintendent for a detenu to purchase a book or periodical which is not banned or proscribed by the Government. Therefore, the Superintendent has no power to refuse permission to a detenu to purchase such a book or periodical under sub-clause (3) and thereby prevent a detenu from purchasing such a book or periodical. Under sub-clause (4), a detenu "may be allowed to purchase.... newspapers, periodicals and books subject to the provisions of sub-clause (3)". But, sub-clause (4) applies only to such items "newspapers, periodicals and books" which are other than those which may be received by post and which a detenu is to purchase from funds which he receives from outside. It has not been contended before us that the periodical ‘Jana Sakthi’ is not to be received by post or that a detenu, in this case, the petitioner, receives funds from outside or that he wants to purchase ‘Jana Sakthi’ from such funds. The arguments of both sides have proceeded before us on the basis that the purchase concerned in this case came under sub-clause (3) and not under sub-clause (4). Purchase by a detenu under sub-clause (3) and the conditions governing receipt of the periodical as laid down in sub-clause (3) are not made subject to the provisions of sub-clause (4). On the other hand, purchase under subclause (4) is subject to the provisions of sub-clause (3). The purchase under subclause (4) involves utilisation of the private funds of the detenu and the Superintendent possesses under clause 12 powers regarding the receipt, custody and disposal of private funds by a detenu within the jail. Sub-clause (3) does not specify as to who is the authority who can allow the purchase. But, there is indication in G.O. Ms. No. 1190 that the authority concerned is the Superintendent. The learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that Clause 18 of G.O. Ms. No. 1190 is ultra vires. He urges that it contravenes section 44 of the Defence of India Act as it vests an arbitrary, uncontrolled and unbridled power in the hands of the Superintendent. No. 1190 that the authority concerned is the Superintendent. The learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that Clause 18 of G.O. Ms. No. 1190 is ultra vires. He urges that it contravenes section 44 of the Defence of India Act as it vests an arbitrary, uncontrolled and unbridled power in the hands of the Superintendent. He relies on the decision of the Bombay High Court in George Fernandes v. State1. In that case, the relevant facts were as follows: Petitioners were detenus, who were detained under rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules. By a Notified order, they were governed by the Bombay Conditions of Detention Order, 1951. The Superintendent of Jail, in which they were lodged, passed an order restricting the number of books which the petitioners could possess at a time. Clause 16 of the Bombay Conditions of Detention Order mentioned as follows: "16. (2) Books (including periodicals) not treated as newspapers may be received by the security prisoners through the post subject to the condition that the postal article containing the books shall first be opened by the Commissioner or the Superintendent, as the case may be, or any person appointed by him in this behalf, and the delivery of such books to the security prisoner, shall be refused by the Commissioner or the Superintendent, as the case may be, if in his opinion it is not suitable." This clause is substantially similar to the first sentence of clause 18(3) of G.O. Ms. No. 1190 but differs from clause 18(3) in a very important matter. In the Bombay clause 16, the first portion says that books includes periodicals. Therefore, the provision in the latter portion that delivery of such books may be refused. But. in G.O. Ms. No. 1190 there is no indication that books includes periodicals also, On the other hand, the word ‘book’ in clause 18 of G.O. Ms. No. 1190 obviously does not include the word ‘periodical’ as there is reference in many paces to books and periodicals as separate and distinct items. Clause 16 of the Bombay Conditions of Detention Order did nor contain any provision enabling the Superintendent to restrict the number of books which a detenu may have, nor did any other order expressly give such power. Clause 16 of the Bombay Conditions of Detention Order did nor contain any provision enabling the Superintendent to restrict the number of books which a detenu may have, nor did any other order expressly give such power. All the same, on behalf of the respondents in the Bombay case, the order of restriction of number of books passed by the Superintendent was sought to be justified on the basis of some other clauses of the Bombay Conditions of Detention Order. But, the right of the Superintendent to open the postal articles containing the books and to refuse delivery under clause 16(2) of the Bombay Order (corresponding to clause 18 of G.O. Ms. No. 1190) was not challenged. The learned Judges observed as follows at page 312: ".......it is accepted on both sides that where books are being made available for use of the detenus, whether being delivered by relations or friends to the Superintendent for the benefit of the detenu or received through postal agency addressed to the detenu, the Superintendent has a right to decide whether a particular book is or is not ‘suitable’. Thus on a fair reading of the clause, it appears to us that the only ground on which a book may be withheld from a detenu is on the decision of the Superintendent that it is unsuitable. It is true that the discretion to decide the suitability of the book or publication is vested in the Superintendent. But, as far as we can see, that discretion will have to operate within a well-defined field.................." We find that the discretion vested in the Superintendent under the first sentence of clause 18(3) of G.O. Ms. No. 1190 is not arbitrary or uncontrolled or unbridled but that it is controlled by the limitation that the Superintendent will have tofind the periodical not suitable taking into account the purpose for which the detenu was detained under rule 30(1)(b)of the Defence of India Rules. We also find that the provision in sub-clause (3) of clause 18 is not in any way in contravention of section 44 of the Defence of India Act. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that clause 18 of G.O. Ms. No. 1190 is ultra vires is not tenable. The learned Advocate-General contends that the order of the Superintendent declaring that a particular periodical is unsuitable is an administrative act. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that clause 18 of G.O. Ms. No. 1190 is ultra vires is not tenable. The learned Advocate-General contends that the order of the Superintendent declaring that a particular periodical is unsuitable is an administrative act. We agree that an order passed in conformity with the first sentence in clause 18(3) would be an administrative act and not a quasi-judicial act. But, the power given in the first sentence of clause 18(3) is only to censor postal article in which a periodical is received but it does not include a power to prohibit or prevent purchase of periodical ‘Jana Sakthi’ by the detenu. When the Superintendent acts in excess of his powers curtailing the right of the detenu given to him by law such as concerned in this case, this Court would be justified in issuing a direction. We find that a direction can be issued regarding the periodical ‘Jana Sakthi’. The position is as follows: The contention in the petition that the rules contained in G.O. Ms. No. 1190 are illegal and are liable to be set aside is not made out. In fact, he puts forward claim regarding periodical and books under a clause of the G.O. which is applicable to him and his grievance regarding legal advice is that clause 26 of the G.O. was illegally made inapplicable by the Government and that it should be made applicable to him. His claims are based on the G.O. and not in spite of the G.O. Clause 18 of the G.O. gives a benefit to him and he claims that benefit. In exercise of that right, the petitioner can purchase ‘Jana Sakthi’ under sub-clause (3) of clause 18. But his receipt ofthe periodical ‘Jana Sakthi’ within jail is subject to the power and right of the Superintendent under the first sentence in sub-clause (3). That power has to be exercised by the Superintendent himself by applying his mind regarding the periodical when it is received by post on principles germane to the object and purpose of detention under rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules. That power has to be exercised by the Superintendent himself by applying his mind regarding the periodical when it is received by post on principles germane to the object and purpose of detention under rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules. The detenu’s purchase of the periodical ‘Jana Sakthi’ does not require permission of the Superintendent and the latter has no right or power to refuse permission or otherwise prevent purchase of ‘Jana Sakthi’ under the second sentence of sub-clause (3) of clause 18 as distinct from the power which he possesses under the first sentence of sub-clause (3). Books: It is not urged in the petition that the petitioner asked for any specific book to be furnished to him or that the Superintendent did not allow the petitioner to purchase such book or to receive such book. We agree with the learned Advocate-General that, in the circumstances, no order can be passed. We do not consider it necessary or desirable to pass an order regarding the general right of the petitioner to books. In the result, a direction will issue that the petitioner may purchase the periodical ‘Jana Sakthi’ and may receive it through post subject to the right of the Superintendent to check and withhold delivery in exercise of his powers under clause 18 of G.O. Ms. No. 1190 dated 28th October, 1964. The petition is allowed to this extent only. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs; ordered accordingly. G.S.M. ----- Petition allowed in part.