https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411247 A preventive detention order was upheld because the Commissioner of Police and the confirming officer were duly empowered under the statutory scheme and business transaction rules. The court held that a detention order may validly be issued by a specially empowered officer of the State Government, and the confirmation order was also competent as it was authenticated by an authorised officer. The challenge based on delay likewise failed because the reference to the Advisory Board and the Board's report were made and received within the prescribed statutory time limits. The detention process was therefore found free from illegality, and the writ petition was rejected. en-us Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Aug 2021 08:08:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411247 A preventive detention order was upheld because the Commissioner of Police and the confirming officer were duly empowered under the statutory scheme and business transaction rules. The court held that a detention order may validly be issued by a specially empowered officer of the State Government, and the confirmation order was also competent as it was authenticated by an authorised officer. The challenge based on delay likewise failed because the reference to the Advisory Board and the Board's report were made and received within the prescribed statutory time limits. The detention process was therefore found free from illegality, and the writ petition was rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411247