https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169335 Preventive detention under the Act is said to withstand challenge where the grounds disclose a continuing course of prejudicial conduct, the material supplied is sufficiently particularised for an effective representation, and the conduct has a rational nexus with maintenance of supplies and services. The absence of named associates did not, on the stated analysis, vitiate the detention, and no undisclosed adverse material was shown to have been relied upon. Delay between the earlier incident and the detention order was treated as insufficient to break the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction, while family hardship was not accepted as a legal basis for release. en-us Mon, 18 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:19:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169335 Preventive detention under the Act is said to withstand challenge where the grounds disclose a continuing course of prejudicial conduct, the material supplied is sufficiently particularised for an effective representation, and the conduct has a rational nexus with maintenance of supplies and services. The absence of named associates did not, on the stated analysis, vitiate the detention, and no undisclosed adverse material was shown to have been relied upon. Delay between the earlier incident and the detention order was treated as insufficient to break the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction, while family hardship was not accepted as a legal basis for release. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 18 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169335