Preventive detention grounds upheld where particulars were sufficient, nexus existed, and no undisclosed material was shown.

Preventive detention under the Act is said to withstand challenge where the grounds disclose a continuing course of prejudicial conduct, the material supplied is sufficiently particularised for an effective representation, and the conduct has a rational nexus with maintenance of supplies and services. The absence of named associates did not, on the stated analysis, vitiate the detention, and no undisclosed adverse material was shown to have been relied upon. Delay between the earlier incident and the detention order was treated as insufficient to break the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction, while family hardship was not accepted as a legal basis for release.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of detention was liable to be set aside on grounds of delay, vagueness of particulars, non-disclosure of associates, lack of nexus with maintenance of supplies and services, and alleged reliance on undisclosed material.

Analysis: The grounds relied upon disclosed a continuing course of prejudicial conduct, and the interval between the earlier incident and the detention order did not destroy the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction. The particulars supplied to the detenu were held sufficient to enable an effective representation, and the omission to name associates did not vitiate the detention. The conduct attributed to the detenu had a direct bearing on the maintenance of supplies and services, since interference with navigational lighting could hinder vessel movement and disrupt community supplies. The counter-affidavit did not disclose any material beyond what had already been communicated, and the plea based on family hardship furnished no legal ground for release under the Act.

Conclusion: The detention order was upheld and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order under the Act will not be invalidated where the grounds communicated are sufficiently particularised, bear a rational nexus to the statutory object, and no undisclosed adverse material is shown to have been relied upon.

---