https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350423 A successive writ petition challenging a preventive detention order on delay in execution and service was treated as an attempt to re-agitate an already available ground. The Court held that no fresh cause had arisen after the earlier round of litigation, and a cosmetic re-framing of the same objection did not make the third petition maintainable under Article 226. It further noted that the delay was largely attributable to the detenu's conduct and to prior judicial protection, so there was no inordinate or unexplained delay sufficient to vitiate the detention order. The challenge failed and the detention order was upheld. en-us Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Nov 2017 08:47:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350423 A successive writ petition challenging a preventive detention order on delay in execution and service was treated as an attempt to re-agitate an already available ground. The Court held that no fresh cause had arisen after the earlier round of litigation, and a cosmetic re-framing of the same objection did not make the third petition maintainable under Article 226. It further noted that the delay was largely attributable to the detenu's conduct and to prior judicial protection, so there was no inordinate or unexplained delay sufficient to vitiate the detention order. The challenge failed and the detention order was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350423