https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157699 Section 11(1) of the Preventive Detention Act was construed as allowing the appropriate Government to confirm a detention order and continue detention for such period as it thinks fit, without making specification of the continuation period a condition of validity. The majority also treated article 166 as governing the form of executive action, but held that failure to express the confirmation decision in the Governor's name did not nullify it where the competent Government had in fact taken the decision. The combined effect was that omission of the period or the constitutional form did not, by itself, invalidate the preventive detention order. en-us Thu, 27 Mar 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Sep 2014 08:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157699 Section 11(1) of the Preventive Detention Act was construed as allowing the appropriate Government to confirm a detention order and continue detention for such period as it thinks fit, without making specification of the continuation period a condition of validity. The majority also treated article 166 as governing the form of executive action, but held that failure to express the confirmation decision in the Governor's name did not nullify it where the competent Government had in fact taken the decision. The combined effect was that omission of the period or the constitutional form did not, by itself, invalidate the preventive detention order. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 27 Mar 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157699