https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422737 Non-placement of the Denied Entry List orders before the detaining authority vitiated subjective satisfaction because a material circumstance bearing on the necessity of preventive detention was withheld from consideration. The unexplained failure to serve the detention order with promptitude, despite the petitioner's availability before the criminal court, was treated as inconsistent with the preventive character of the measure and fatal to the detention process. Belated recourse to Section 7(1)(b) on an unsupported assumption of abscondence was also found unsustainable. However, the challenge to competence failed because the Section 7 power had been validly delegated to the specially empowered officer. en-us Fri, 20 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jun 2026 14:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422737 Non-placement of the Denied Entry List orders before the detaining authority vitiated subjective satisfaction because a material circumstance bearing on the necessity of preventive detention was withheld from consideration. The unexplained failure to serve the detention order with promptitude, despite the petitioner's availability before the criminal court, was treated as inconsistent with the preventive character of the measure and fatal to the detention process. Belated recourse to Section 7(1)(b) on an unsupported assumption of abscondence was also found unsustainable. However, the challenge to competence failed because the Section 7 power had been validly delegated to the specially empowered officer. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 20 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422737