Preventive detention on a single prejudicial incident and prior consideration of representation before Advisory Board scrutiny.

Preventive detention may be sustained on a single prejudicial incident where the material reasonably supports the detaining authority's satisfaction that similar conduct may recur and affect essential supplies and services. Here, removal of fish plates from a running track and the resulting disruption of train services was treated as sufficient material for detention. The note also states that the State Government must consider a detenu's representation before forwarding it to the Advisory Board, and that this sequence did not invalidate the detention because the representation was first examined and then placed before the Board.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a single incident of removal of fish plates from the running track and disruption of train services furnished adequate material for the detaining authority to be satisfied that the detenu would act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community; and (ii) whether the State Government acted unlawfully in considering and rejecting the detenu's representation before forwarding it to the Advisory Board.

Issue (i): whether a single incident of removal of fish plates from the running track and disruption of train services furnished adequate material for the detaining authority to be satisfied that the detenu would act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.

Analysis: Removal of fish plates from a running track and the resulting disruption of train services directly affected essential supplies and services. The material before the detaining authority was not insufficient merely because it arose from one occurrence. On that basis, the authority could reasonably reach the preventive detention satisfaction that similar prejudicial conduct might recur if the detenu remained at large.

Conclusion: The detention could validly rest on the single incident and the challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): whether the State Government acted unlawfully in considering and rejecting the detenu's representation before forwarding it to the Advisory Board.

Analysis: The representation had to be considered by the State Government before being placed before the Advisory Board. The sequence adopted did not vitiate the detention because the Government first applied its mind to the representation and the Advisory Board thereafter considered the matter and submitted its report.

Conclusion: The forwarding of the representation after its consideration and rejection by the State Government did not invalidate the detention order.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was upheld and the challenge to preventive detention failed in entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: A single prejudicial incident may furnish sufficient material for preventive detention where it reasonably supports the detaining authority's satisfaction, and the State Government must consider the detenu's representation before forwarding it to the Advisory Board.

---