https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350283 A second writ challenge to a preventive detention order was not maintainable where the same ground had already been rejected in an earlier petition and that determination had attained finality. The Court also treated the alleged delay in service of the detention order as unavailable because it was not shown to be a ground that could not have been raised earlier. Rejection of the representation on the same basis did not undermine the detention order, and acquittal in the summons-compliance case under Sections 174 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 did not provide a valid basis to attack preventive detention. The petition was dismissed. en-us Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Nov 2017 10:12:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350283 A second writ challenge to a preventive detention order was not maintainable where the same ground had already been rejected in an earlier petition and that determination had attained finality. The Court also treated the alleged delay in service of the detention order as unavailable because it was not shown to be a ground that could not have been raised earlier. Rejection of the representation on the same basis did not undermine the detention order, and acquittal in the summons-compliance case under Sections 174 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 did not provide a valid basis to attack preventive detention. The petition was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350283