https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184459 Preventive detention for theft of telecommunication cables was treated as capable of falling within action prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, and detention fixed by reference to the life of the Defence of India Act, 1971 was not regarded as indefinite under Article 22(7). The absence of a counter-affidavit by the District Magistrate was viewed as a serious procedural defect, but the detention ultimately failed because material relied upon by the detaining authority, including undisclosed information describing the detenu as a habitual or dangerous offender, was not communicated. That non-disclosure deprived the detenu of an effective opportunity to represent against the order, violating Article 22(5) and the statutory safeguards. en-us Thu, 14 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Jul 2016 11:27:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184459 Preventive detention for theft of telecommunication cables was treated as capable of falling within action prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, and detention fixed by reference to the life of the Defence of India Act, 1971 was not regarded as indefinite under Article 22(7). The absence of a counter-affidavit by the District Magistrate was viewed as a serious procedural defect, but the detention ultimately failed because material relied upon by the detaining authority, including undisclosed information describing the detenu as a habitual or dangerous offender, was not communicated. That non-disclosure deprived the detenu of an effective opportunity to represent against the order, violating Article 22(5) and the statutory safeguards. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 14 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184459