https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289663 Preventive detention was upheld where the communication of grounds, though containing a stereotyped recital, still disclosed the factual basis and did not create a substantive illegality. A return affidavit by a Deputy Secretary was accepted because the detaining authority's personal affidavit was not legally indispensable. Omission to state the detention period in the confirmation order did not vitiate detention because the statute itself fixed the maximum duration and allowed earlier revocation. The Court would not reappraise the sufficiency of material before the detaining authority where a rational nexus with maintenance of essential supplies and services existed, and no unreasonable delay in communicating confirmation was shown. en-us Thu, 20 Dec 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Aug 2020 10:30:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289663 Preventive detention was upheld where the communication of grounds, though containing a stereotyped recital, still disclosed the factual basis and did not create a substantive illegality. A return affidavit by a Deputy Secretary was accepted because the detaining authority's personal affidavit was not legally indispensable. Omission to state the detention period in the confirmation order did not vitiate detention because the statute itself fixed the maximum duration and allowed earlier revocation. The Court would not reappraise the sufficiency of material before the detaining authority where a rational nexus with maintenance of essential supplies and services existed, and no unreasonable delay in communicating confirmation was shown. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 20 Dec 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289663