https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262780 Preventive detention under COFEPOSA cannot survive where substantial delay in processing and issuing the order is not satisfactorily explained and the live link with the prejudicial activity is broken. The Court found that the detaining authority failed to account for material intervals at several stages, including proposal processing, correspondence, and the period between receipt of information and issuance of the detention order. It also noted that no further adverse activity by the proposed detenu was shown after the proposal was sent. On these facts, the detention order was held unsustainable for want of a subsisting basis of subjective satisfaction and was quashed. en-us Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262780 Preventive detention under COFEPOSA cannot survive where substantial delay in processing and issuing the order is not satisfactorily explained and the live link with the prejudicial activity is broken. The Court found that the detaining authority failed to account for material intervals at several stages, including proposal processing, correspondence, and the period between receipt of information and issuance of the detention order. It also noted that no further adverse activity by the proposed detenu was shown after the proposal was sent. On these facts, the detention order was held unsustainable for want of a subsisting basis of subjective satisfaction and was quashed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262780