Preventive detention and subjective satisfaction fail where collusion is unsupported by material showing knowing diversion of kerosene.

Preventive detention requires genuine and reasonable subjective satisfaction based on material showing a real link between the person and the alleged misconduct. Here, the detention was founded mainly on the petitioner's purchases from an authorised dealer and the fact that the kerosene in his possession had been billed as white kerosene. As the record did not show that white kerosene was unavailable, that the dealer lacked authority to sell it, or that the petitioner knew of any diversion of blue kerosene, the inference of collusion was unsupported. The detention order was therefore invalid and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the preventive detention order was vitiated for want of genuine and reasonable subjective satisfaction, particularly on the allegation of collusion and the grounds recorded regarding the kerosene found in the petitioner's possession.

Analysis: The detention order rested mainly on two circumstances: the petitioner's long-standing purchases from an authorised dealer and the fact that the kerosene found in his possession had been billed as white kerosene. The record did not show that white kerosene was unavailable in the market, that the dealer was unauthorised to sell it, or that the petitioner knew that any blue kerosene was being diverted or sold in breach of the distribution regime. The material also did not disclose any prior illegal conduct by the petitioner relating to kerosene. In these circumstances, the inference of collusion was unsupported and the detention authority's satisfaction could not be regarded as genuine.

Conclusion: The preventive detention order was invalid and was liable to be quashed.

---