https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183426 A preventive detention order was treated as valid where it stated that the Government was satisfied and concluded that it was made by order of the Governor, because Article 166 was held to require substantial compliance rather than any rigid verbal formula. On proof of the detention order, the Court held that there is no rule of law requiring an affidavit only from the Minister in charge in every case; an affidavit by the Home Secretary or another person with sufficient knowledge may be adequate if accepted on the facts. The order of release was set aside, and the respondent was protected against rearrest on the matters covered by the appeal. en-us Mon, 26 May 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jun 2016 10:14:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183426 A preventive detention order was treated as valid where it stated that the Government was satisfied and concluded that it was made by order of the Governor, because Article 166 was held to require substantial compliance rather than any rigid verbal formula. On proof of the detention order, the Court held that there is no rule of law requiring an affidavit only from the Minister in charge in every case; an affidavit by the Home Secretary or another person with sufficient knowledge may be adequate if accepted on the facts. The order of release was set aside, and the respondent was protected against rearrest on the matters covered by the appeal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 26 May 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183426