https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173450 A material mismatch between the reason stated in a preventive detention order and the basis recorded in the grounds of detention can vitiate the subjective satisfaction for non-application of mind. Where the order referred to preventing abetting smuggling, but the supplied grounds referred to preventing smuggling itself, the inconsistency was treated as distinct and prejudicial. Because the detenu was not clearly informed of the true basis of detention, the discrepancy also impaired the right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. On that reasoning, the detention was held unsustainable and quashed. en-us Wed, 08 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Sep 2015 18:16:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173450 A material mismatch between the reason stated in a preventive detention order and the basis recorded in the grounds of detention can vitiate the subjective satisfaction for non-application of mind. Where the order referred to preventing abetting smuggling, but the supplied grounds referred to preventing smuggling itself, the inconsistency was treated as distinct and prejudicial. Because the detenu was not clearly informed of the true basis of detention, the discrepancy also impaired the right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. On that reasoning, the detention was held unsustainable and quashed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 08 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173450