Preventive detention review is limited to material and competence, not adequacy of satisfaction; quashing of detention was reversed.

In judicial review of preventive detention, the Court may examine only whether the order rests on relevant material and was made by a competent authority; it cannot assess the adequacy of the material or substitute its view on subjective satisfaction. The detention order, grounds and direction issued in the name of the Governor and duly authenticated were treated as an order of the State Government, and the challenge for non-application of mind and want of competence failed. The objection that the appeal had become infructuous on expiry of the detention period was rejected. The High Court's quashing of the detention order was held unsustainable and the detention order was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order of detention was vitiated for non-application of mind and absence of satisfaction on the materials before the detaining authority; (ii) whether the order was invalid for want of competence of the authority that passed it; (iii) whether the appeal had become infructuous on expiry of the maximum period of detention.

Issue (i): Whether the order of detention was vitiated for non-application of mind and absence of satisfaction on the materials before the detaining authority.

Analysis: The record showed that the detention order, the accompanying grounds, and the related direction were all issued on the same date in the name of the Governor of Gujarat and authenticated by the same officer. On a perusal of these documents, the finding of the High Court that there was no application of mind or material-based satisfaction was held to be unsupported. The satisfaction required under the preventive detention statute is that of the detaining authority, and in judicial review the Court is confined to seeing whether the order rests on material and cannot test adequacy of the material as an appellate authority.

Conclusion: The detention order was not vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind or absence of subjective satisfaction.

Issue (ii): Whether the order was invalid for want of competence of the authority that passed it.

Analysis: The statutory power under Section 3(1) could be exercised by the State Government or by duly empowered officers. The affidavit established that the Home Minister considered the entire record and passed the detention order, while the Deputy Secretary only authenticated it in accordance with Article 166(2). An order made in the name of the Governor and validly authenticated was treated as an order of the State Government, and therefore the challenge to competence failed.

Conclusion: The order of detention was passed by a competent authority.

Issue (iii): Whether the appeal had become infructuous on expiry of the maximum period of detention.

Analysis: The objection was rejected by following the earlier decision on the same point. Setting aside the High Court's quashing order restores the detention order to legal efficacy, and the expiry of the detention period did not render the appeal incapable of adjudication.

Conclusion: The appeal did not become infructuous.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's quashing of the detention order was unsustainable, and the preventive detention order was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In judicial review of preventive detention, the Court may examine only whether the detention order is founded on material and passed by the competent authority, but not the adequacy of the material or the sufficiency of subjective satisfaction; an order duly authenticated in the name of the Governor operates as an order of the State Government.

---