https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297921 Preventive detention requires a proximate and live nexus between the alleged prejudicial activity and the detention order. Where there is an inordinate delay, the detaining authority must satisfactorily explain the interval; otherwise the apprehension of future prejudicial conduct loses its basis. Here, the alleged incident occurred on 01.06.2007, but the detention order was passed only on 19.08.2008, and the record showed no explanation for the delay or material indicating continuing prejudicial activity in the meantime. The detention order was therefore vitiated by unexplained delay and liable to be quashed. en-us Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Sep 2021 16:07:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297921 Preventive detention requires a proximate and live nexus between the alleged prejudicial activity and the detention order. Where there is an inordinate delay, the detaining authority must satisfactorily explain the interval; otherwise the apprehension of future prejudicial conduct loses its basis. Here, the alleged incident occurred on 01.06.2007, but the detention order was passed only on 19.08.2008, and the record showed no explanation for the delay or material indicating continuing prejudicial activity in the meantime. The detention order was therefore vitiated by unexplained delay and liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297921