https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171692 In preventive detention matters under COFEPOSA, an inordinate delay in executing a detention order does not by itself invalidate the order, but the detaining authority must offer a satisfactory, supported explanation when the delay is substantial. Here, the detention order remained unexecuted for about 40 days, and the explanation that the detenu could not be found was unsupported by material from the executing agency. The record also showed that the detenu was available before the Magistrate during the relevant period, yet no effective prompt attempt was made to serve the order. The Supreme Court held that the unexplained and unreasonable delay vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, and the detention order was quashed. en-us Tue, 02 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Oct 2016 12:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171692 In preventive detention matters under COFEPOSA, an inordinate delay in executing a detention order does not by itself invalidate the order, but the detaining authority must offer a satisfactory, supported explanation when the delay is substantial. Here, the detention order remained unexecuted for about 40 days, and the explanation that the detenu could not be found was unsupported by material from the executing agency. The record also showed that the detenu was available before the Magistrate during the relevant period, yet no effective prompt attempt was made to serve the order. The Supreme Court held that the unexplained and unreasonable delay vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, and the detention order was quashed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 02 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171692