Preventive detention fails when even one extraneous ground supports the order and may have influenced satisfaction.

A preventive detention order is vitiated where even one of its stated grounds is extraneous and not legally sustainable. The Court noted that Ground No. 1 did not satisfy the ingredients of extortion because it failed to allege that any person was intentionally put in fear of injury, so it could not form a lawful basis for detention. Because the detention rested on multiple grounds and there was nothing to show the authority would have acted without being influenced by the invalid ground, the order could not stand. The detention was therefore invalid and the detenue was entitled to release.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated because one of the grounds supplied for detention was extraneous and not legally sufficient to justify detention.

Analysis: The detention was founded on multiple grounds, but Ground No. 1 did not satisfy the ingredients of extortion as defined in the penal law, because it did not allege that the petitioner had intentionally put any person in fear of injury. Since the ground did not fall within any of the statutory bases for detention and was extraneous to the lawful exercise of power, it could not support the order. The existence of even one extraneous ground was held to be enough to vitiate the detention order, particularly where there was nothing to show that the authority would have passed the order without being influenced by that ground.

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

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to release because the preventive detention order could not stand once an extraneous ground formed part of the basis of detention.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order is vitiated if even one of the grounds on which it is based is extraneous and not legally sustainable, where that ground may have influenced the detaining authority's satisfaction.

---