<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1965 (8) TMI 106 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300267</link>
    <description>Preventive detention under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 may be sustained where antecedent criminal conduct reasonably indicates a likelihood of future activity prejudicial to public order. The detaining authority&#039;s subjective satisfaction is not open to reappraisal on the adequacy of material, but the Court may test whether the grounds are relevant, proximate to public order, and free from mala fides or collateral purpose. On the detenu&#039;s record of violent offences, breaches of peace, threats to witnesses, armed conduct, and repeated criminal acts, the nexus with public peace, safety, and tranquillity was found sufficiently close, and the detention order was upheld as valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2022 13:17:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=667774" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (8) TMI 106 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300267</link>
      <description>Preventive detention under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 may be sustained where antecedent criminal conduct reasonably indicates a likelihood of future activity prejudicial to public order. The detaining authority&#039;s subjective satisfaction is not open to reappraisal on the adequacy of material, but the Court may test whether the grounds are relevant, proximate to public order, and free from mala fides or collateral purpose. On the detenu&#039;s record of violent offences, breaches of peace, threats to witnesses, armed conduct, and repeated criminal acts, the nexus with public peace, safety, and tranquillity was found sufficiently close, and the detention order was upheld as valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>