Preventive detention fails when one relied-upon ground is misconceived, showing non-application of mind and invalid subjective satisfaction.

In preventive detention based on subjective satisfaction, reliance on even one non-existent, irrelevant, or misconceived ground vitiates the entire order. Here, the detaining authority treated the omission of purchasers' names and addresses on cash memos for high speed diesel oil as a licence breach, but that requirement had already been dispensed with by a government order in force at the material time. The ground was therefore wholly unfounded and showed non-application of mind. Because it was impossible to know how far this bad ground influenced the detention decision, the order was invalid and was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of detention was vitiated because one of the grounds on which the detaining authority acted was misconceived and showed non-application of mind.

Analysis: The detention order was founded on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Ground 5 asserted that the detenue had supplied high speed diesel oil under cash memos without entering the names and addresses of purchasers, allegedly in breach of Clause 7 of the licence, and that this showed fictitious sales. The record showed that a government order had already dispensed with the requirement of mentioning the names and addresses of customers in cash memos for high speed diesel oil. That dispensation was in force at the material time. The stated omission therefore did not constitute a breach of the licence and could not rationally support an inference that the sales were to fictitious persons. The ground was wholly unfounded and revealed a mechanical approach and lack of application of mind. Since preventive detention is based on subjective satisfaction, the presence of even one non-existent or irrelevant ground vitiates the whole order because it is impossible to know to what extent the bad ground influenced the decision.

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

Final Conclusion: The detention was set aside because the detaining authority relied on a misconceived ground that was not available in law, and the detenue was directed to be released.

Ratio Decidendi: In a preventive detention matter based on subjective satisfaction, if even one relied-upon ground is non-existent, irrelevant, or misconceived, the entire detention order fails for want of valid satisfaction.

---