https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180852 Section 10 of the Act was held to run from the date of actual detention, not from the date of the detention order, so the appeal did not become infructuous merely because the maximum detention period had expired on the contrary view. In preventive detention review under Article 226, the Court may only verify whether the detaining authority had some material before it; it cannot assess the sufficiency of that material or apply proof beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court erred in quashing the detention order, and the detention was sustained because the authority's satisfaction was based on material and judicial review was limited. en-us Fri, 18 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180852 Section 10 of the Act was held to run from the date of actual detention, not from the date of the detention order, so the appeal did not become infructuous merely because the maximum detention period had expired on the contrary view. In preventive detention review under Article 226, the Court may only verify whether the detaining authority had some material before it; it cannot assess the sufficiency of that material or apply proof beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court erred in quashing the detention order, and the detention was sustained because the authority's satisfaction was based on material and judicial review was limited. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 18 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180852