https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172363 A preventive detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 was challenged on the ground that it was made about five months after the last incident relied upon. The Supreme Court held that mere lapse of time, by itself, does not invalidate detention where the grounds disclose repeated prejudicial acts and the detaining authority could still reasonably reach subjective satisfaction that detention was necessary to prevent further harmful activity. On the facts, repeated thefts and attempted theft of overhead aluminium conductor wire had caused prolonged disruption of electricity supply, and the delay did not show absence of bona fides or subjective satisfaction. The habeas corpus challenge therefore failed. en-us Tue, 26 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:12:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172363 A preventive detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 was challenged on the ground that it was made about five months after the last incident relied upon. The Supreme Court held that mere lapse of time, by itself, does not invalidate detention where the grounds disclose repeated prejudicial acts and the detaining authority could still reasonably reach subjective satisfaction that detention was necessary to prevent further harmful activity. On the facts, repeated thefts and attempted theft of overhead aluminium conductor wire had caused prolonged disruption of electricity supply, and the delay did not show absence of bona fides or subjective satisfaction. The habeas corpus challenge therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172363