TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the detention order could be sustained when there was an inordinate delay of more than five years in executing it and no cogent explanation was offered for the delay.
Analysis: The detention was made in 1989 but executed only in 1994. The explanation that the detenu was absconding was not accepted, since the record did not show reliable material that he had remained out of reach throughout the period. The asserted marriage of the detenu at Trivandrum during the interregnum undermined the claim that he was concealed or unavailable. The Court also noticed that the preventive steps contemplated for an absconding person were not effectively shown to have been pursued. In the circumstances, the long and unexplained delay destroyed the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the preventive purpose of the order.
Conclusion: The detention order could not be sustained and was quashed; release from custody was directed.
Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order loses validity when there is an unexplained and inordinate delay in execution and the material does not establish that the detenu was absconding or otherwise beyond reach, because the necessary live and proximate link with the preventive object is broken.
TaxTMI 
