https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168101 The word "forthwith" in section 3(3) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was construed as requiring prompt action without avoidable delay, assessed in light of the surrounding circumstances; on the facts, the report was treated as timely because the delay was explained by the disturbed situation and law-and-order duties. Challenges to detention also failed because temporary confinement at one prison did not negate the intended place of detention, past conduct could support an inference of future prejudicial conduct, and instigation of hartal leading to stoppage of work, business and transport could fall within the statutory ground of detention. The detention orders were therefore upheld. en-us Mon, 17 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2015 15:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168101 The word "forthwith" in section 3(3) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was construed as requiring prompt action without avoidable delay, assessed in light of the surrounding circumstances; on the facts, the report was treated as timely because the delay was explained by the disturbed situation and law-and-order duties. Challenges to detention also failed because temporary confinement at one prison did not negate the intended place of detention, past conduct could support an inference of future prejudicial conduct, and instigation of hartal leading to stoppage of work, business and transport could fall within the statutory ground of detention. The detention orders were therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 17 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168101