Preventive detention order cannot be enforced when it has remained unexecuted for years and has become stale on the facts.

A preventive detention order that remained unexecuted for an inordinate period was treated as stale on the facts and could not be enforced where no similar post-order conduct was shown. The Court held that keeping such an order alive would serve no practical purpose and amount to an exercise in futility. The High Court's order was set aside, the detention order was left without operative effect, and it was made clear that future similar allegations could still be acted upon if they arise.

---

---

Issues: Whether a preventive detention order that remained unexecuted for several years could still be given effect to in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The detention order had been passed long before the appeal was heard and had not been executed till date. The grounds for detention related to activities said to have occurred years earlier, and there was no indication of similar conduct by the appellant after the order was made. In these circumstances, continuing to keep the detention order alive would serve no practical purpose.

Conclusion: The detention order could not be given effect any further and the High Court's order was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded, and the preventive detention order was left without operative effect, while leaving it open to the respondents to act on future similar allegations if they arise.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order that has remained unexecuted for an inordinate period, and has become stale on the facts, should not be enforced when doing so would be an exercise in futility.

---