Preventive detention sustained where representation delay was explained and a reply to another authority did not affect subjective satisfaction.

A preventive detention order was sustained because the delay in considering the detenu's representation was satisfactorily explained by administrative processing, calls for remarks, further inquiry, paper transmission and holidays, so the detention was not vitiated on that ground. The Court also held that a reply addressed to an authority different from the one issuing the show-cause notice was not a valid reply for detention purposes; its non-placement before the detaining authority therefore did not affect the recorded subjective satisfaction. The challenge to the detention consequently failed and the detention order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether there was inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the detenu's representation so as to vitiate the detention; (ii) Whether non-placement of the detenu's reply to the show-cause notice before the detaining authority vitiated the subjective satisfaction underlying the detention order.

Issue (i): Whether there was inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the detenu's representation so as to vitiate the detention.

Analysis: The representation was processed through the concerned administrative channels and the intervening period was explained by the calling for remarks, further inquiry into the detenu's financial position, transmission of papers between the authorities, and holidays. The Court accepted the explanation and held that the delay, if any, was satisfactorily accounted for. It also treated the representation as having received due consideration before rejection.

Conclusion: The contention of unexplained delay failed and the detention was not vitiated on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether non-placement of the detenu's reply to the show-cause notice before the detaining authority vitiated the subjective satisfaction underlying the detention order.

Analysis: The reply was addressed to an authority different from the one that had issued the show-cause notice. On that basis, the Court held that it was not a valid reply to the notice issued by the competent officer, and therefore its non-placement before the detaining authority did not affect the satisfaction recorded for detention.

Conclusion: The contention based on non-placement of the reply failed and the detention order was not vitiated.

Final Conclusion: The detention was upheld and the petition challenging it was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order is not vitiated where the alleged delay in dealing with the representation is satisfactorily explained, and material addressed to an authority other than the notice-issuing authority need not be treated as a valid reply whose non-placement would invalidate the detaining authority's satisfaction.

---