https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291996 Detention was upheld because the detaining authority was found to have acted bona fide and with due application of mind, so the mala fides challenge failed. The grounds of detention were sufficiently definite to be intelligible and to permit a representation, even if not drafted with ideal precision, so they were not vague. Non-disclosure of further particulars was justified where the detaining authority considered disclosure contrary to public interest under article 22(6); no separate communication of that decision was required in the absence of a request for particulars. The detention order was sustained and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Tue, 24 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Dec 2020 11:44:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291996 Detention was upheld because the detaining authority was found to have acted bona fide and with due application of mind, so the mala fides challenge failed. The grounds of detention were sufficiently definite to be intelligible and to permit a representation, even if not drafted with ideal precision, so they were not vague. Non-disclosure of further particulars was justified where the detaining authority considered disclosure contrary to public interest under article 22(6); no separate communication of that decision was required in the absence of a request for particulars. The detention order was sustained and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 24 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291996