Preventive detention requires consideration of the current import policy; failure to place amended rules before the authority vitiated detention.

In preventive detention matters, the detaining authority must consider all relevant legal provisions in force at the time of detention that bear on the alleged prejudicial activity. Here, the amended import policy governing import and sale of cars was a material circumstance because it introduced changes affecting the legality of the transactions relied on for detention. As the amended policy was not placed before or considered by the authority, its subjective satisfaction was vitiated and the detention order was invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated because the amended import policy governing import of cars and vehicles, in force on the date of detention, was not placed before or considered by the detaining authority while arriving at subjective satisfaction under preventive detention law.

Analysis: The detention was founded on alleged unauthorised foreign exchange dealings connected with import and sale of cars by non-resident Indians. The import policy relevant to such transactions had been amended before the detention order, and the amended paragraph 125(1) introduced material changes, including an additional condition regarding prior use of the vehicle. Since the detaining authority relied on the detenu's alleged conduct under the policy regime governing such imports, the amended policy was a relevant material circumstance bearing on the formation of subjective satisfaction. Non-placement of that amended policy deprived the authority of a proper legal basis for evaluating the alleged prejudicial activity.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid because the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction stood vitiated by non-placement and non-consideration of the amended import policy.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the detention order was quashed, resulting in the detenu's release unless required in any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, all relevant and material legal provisions in force at the time of detention that bear on the alleged prejudicial activity must be placed before and considered by the detaining authority; failure to do so vitiates subjective satisfaction and the detention order.

---