https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296056 The Delhi High Court noted that a preventive detention order had not been served on the detenue despite his continued custody in Central Jail, Visakhapatnam for sixty days, and treated that non-service as requiring explanation from the detaining authority. Without deciding the merits or legality of the detention at that stage, the Court directed the Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA, Ministry of Finance to file a personal affidavit explaining any lapse in service and the reasons for it, and listed the matter for further hearing. en-us Fri, 22 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jul 2021 08:56:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296056 The Delhi High Court noted that a preventive detention order had not been served on the detenue despite his continued custody in Central Jail, Visakhapatnam for sixty days, and treated that non-service as requiring explanation from the detaining authority. Without deciding the merits or legality of the detention at that stage, the Court directed the Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA, Ministry of Finance to file a personal affidavit explaining any lapse in service and the reasons for it, and listed the matter for further hearing. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 22 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296056