https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73529 A brother of the detenu, whose proprietary interests could be affected by proceedings under the forfeiture law, was held to have sufficient interest to invoke Article 226 and challenge the detention order. The commentary also states that a preventive detention order cannot be sustained where the detaining authority ignores a prior court order granting time to return to India and uses detention for an impermissible purpose inconsistent with preventive detention, namely to bar entry into India rather than prevent prejudicial activity. On those facts, the order was treated as invalid and liable to be quashed. en-us Wed, 21 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73529 A brother of the detenu, whose proprietary interests could be affected by proceedings under the forfeiture law, was held to have sufficient interest to invoke Article 226 and challenge the detention order. The commentary also states that a preventive detention order cannot be sustained where the detaining authority ignores a prior court order granting time to return to India and uses detention for an impermissible purpose inconsistent with preventive detention, namely to bar entry into India rather than prevent prejudicial activity. On those facts, the order was treated as invalid and liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 21 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73529