Preventive detention fails when material settlement documents are withheld from the detaining authority, undermining subjective satisfaction.

Preventive detention is vitiated where material documents with a direct bearing on the necessity and legality of detention are withheld from the detaining authority. The detenu's settlement application and the Settlement Commission's order were relevant to subjective satisfaction because they showed that settlement proceedings had been invoked and additional duty had been directed to be paid. As those documents were not placed before the authority, there was no fair consideration or proper application of mind, and the detention order was held unlawful.

---

---

Issues: Whether the preventive detention order was vitiated by non-placement before the detaining authority of the detenu's application and order of the Settlement Commission, which were relevant to the issue of detention.

Analysis: The relevant documents before the Settlement Commission showed that the detenu had sought settlement and had been directed to pay additional duty, with exclusive jurisdiction having been assumed by that Commission under the Customs Act. Those documents had a direct bearing on the necessity and legality of detention, yet they were not placed before the detaining authority. In preventive detention matters, all material capable of affecting subjective satisfaction must be disclosed to the authority so that there is fair consideration and proper application of mind. The withholding of such material was treated as a serious lapse that vitiated the detention.

Conclusion: The detention order was illegal and could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to place before the detaining authority material documents having a direct bearing on the necessity of detention vitiates the subjective satisfaction and renders the preventive detention order unlawful.

---