Preventive detention survives when a merely referred document need not be supplied and representation is decided without unexplained delay.

A preventive detention order was sustained where the suspension or termination order was only a referred document and not the basis of the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction; its non-placement or non-supply did not invalidate the detention. The detention was founded on the detenu's alleged false declaration, concealed foreign currency recovery, prior smuggling activity, and surrounding circumstances indicating likely continued prejudicial conduct. The representation challenge also failed because the record showed day-to-day movement, intervening holidays, rejection, and communication, with no unexplained or inordinate delay in disposal. The detention order therefore remained valid and no ground for judicial interference was made out.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was vitiated for non-placement or non-supply of the detenu's suspension or termination order, which was said to be a merely referred document and not the basis of detention; (ii) whether there was undue delay in disposal of the detenu's representation so as to invalidate the detention.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order was vitiated for non-placement or non-supply of the detenu's suspension or termination order, which was said to be a merely referred document and not the basis of detention.

Analysis: The detention was founded on the detenu's alleged false declaration, recovery of concealed foreign currency, prior smuggling activity, and the surrounding circumstances bearing on the likelihood of continued prejudicial activity. The suspension or termination order was not treated as the foundation of the subjective satisfaction. A document merely referred to and not relied upon as the basis of detention need not be supplied or considered for invalidating the order.

Conclusion: The detention order was not vitiated on this ground and the contention failed.

Issue (ii): Whether there was undue delay in disposal of the detenu's representation so as to invalidate the detention.

Analysis: The counter-affidavits set out the day-to-day movement of the representation, including receipt, processing, intervening holidays, rejection, and communication. On that record, no unexplained or inordinate delay was made out in the consideration of the representation.

Conclusion: There was no undue delay in disposal of the representation and the contention failed.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was upheld and no ground was made out for judicial interference.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order is not invalidated where a document not forming the basis of subjective satisfaction is neither placed before nor supplied to the detenu, and a representation does not vitiate detention when the record shows prompt consideration with explained intervals.

---