https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289341 A fresh detention order served in jail was upheld where the earlier temporary order had been revoked and replaced the same day, because the detenu remained under detention and the service was not an empty formality. The order was also sustained as it sufficiently disclosed the Government's satisfaction that detention was necessary to prevent prejudicial activity, even without verbatim statutory language. The competence challenge failed because the order fell within the relevant Rules of Business under Article 166. Section 40 did not require separate delegation for the State Government's direct power under Rule 30, and the order was not invalid for failing to recite consideration of lesser measures under Section 44. en-us Wed, 29 Jan 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Jul 2020 15:07:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289341 A fresh detention order served in jail was upheld where the earlier temporary order had been revoked and replaced the same day, because the detenu remained under detention and the service was not an empty formality. The order was also sustained as it sufficiently disclosed the Government's satisfaction that detention was necessary to prevent prejudicial activity, even without verbatim statutory language. The competence challenge failed because the order fell within the relevant Rules of Business under Article 166. Section 40 did not require separate delegation for the State Government's direct power under Rule 30, and the order was not invalid for failing to recite consideration of lesser measures under Section 44. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Jan 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289341