Preventive detention upheld where particularised grounds showed diversion of rice and no vagueness in the detention material

Preventive detention based on the District Magistrate's subjective satisfaction was upheld because the supplied grounds were sufficiently particularised and not vague or illusory. The material showed nocturnal transport of rice, false cash memos and licence particulars, and verification that the alleged buyers had not made the claimed purchases, which provided an adequate basis for detention. The Court also held that prejudice to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community was not to be read narrowly in the context of food distribution and control, and that describing the ground as cumulative, rather than alternative, did not invalidate the order. The challenge failed and the detention was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was invalid for uncertainty or vagueness in the grounds, and whether the facts disclosed a sufficient basis for detention under the statutory power to prevent prejudice to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.

Analysis: The detention was founded on a statutory power of preventive detention exercised on the District Magistrate's subjective satisfaction. The grounds supplied with the detention order set out the nocturnal transport of rice, the false cash memos and licence particulars, and the verification showing that the alleged buyers had not made the claimed purchases. On these particulars, the Court held that the material was not vague or illusory. It further held that the expression relating to maintenance of supplies and services was not to be read in a narrow compartmentalised sense in the context of food distribution and control, since the illegal movement and attempted diversion of rice could prejudice both supplies and services. The Court also held that the ground was cumulative and not alternative, so the order was not invalid merely because the affidavit or wording referred to both supplies and services.

Conclusion: The detention order was valid and the challenge based on vagueness or want of material failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected, and the preventive detention was sustained on the basis of adequate and sufficiently particularised grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention cases, if the grounds are sufficiently particularised and disclose material supporting a rational subjective satisfaction, the order is not invalid merely because the conduct is described as prejudicial to both supplies and services or because the grounds are cumulative rather than alternative.

---