"But a close scrutiny of the ludgment in M.Ahmedkutt/ (supras) goes to show that the issue beiore ,n" n"r;oi. irp.r(:me court Court's was whether interim order the detaining in ur,noritv jng_ .on.iiiljifi: Supreme ^p-end quashing of a previous order of detention against "pp"Ji "g]irrt,ilg then coru,. same detenu was considered or *re rion;uLe ;;;;;;;;J,li!,0Y|,,l?j""i,,,,swiththe saidissue, "25. Non _consideration of the bail order woulc have therefore, in this case m i 1d. l,'u ;i o ; ;; r"""ot-t T,".', "t:j,.:? l,:?;.;, ?fiifil "j SCC 241j the Suprem^e C-ourrs interim o;deir i; ^pending appeal against Hrgh Cou( j quashing of-'u j,uu,or. .o order n, 0","0 of detentton"'oi ;;; ;::j::: ao o' ":,,'nil:, i:iJ ;",;; :, lr impugned subsequent order against him. It was hetd that non_consideration oF the interim order *f-t iai '.orrit r,"o " rer,evant and Innportant rorerrar *ui " 'ruui.. i,, ,n" subsequent detentron c of min'd,- Ii -j"i.,",'"T"fott groundof non-application .19 dLr rority consrdered that order one could not state n:.lo r.",1,,j su bj ective .".irt,i, I jl] rti:l[. :""::,.[ i,. have persuaded the detainrng authority to desist lrom passing the order of detentron.,, Thus, in the aforementioned case, the Hon,ble Suprerre Court was not dealing with thr cond. tions,, Jo.io, "' inj 0""'j.X""r'ff 1',11":",:?;ff ";ilil? ;: but that aspect was nor hroughr to th" ,iti."""f ',rt,,u" ,,r,r,on Bench in Wp No.38082 of 2018, wherein the said orr,er was passed basing on the orrjer. n w.p.rvo.:Z:ie- oi )Olu, Ou,"o 09'11,2018. The said distinction was not noticed by the )ivjsion Bench in w.p.No.3239B or iors. r" trr" i"ri""i."urrJ,,=u= ,,u,"0 supra, conditionat bait orders purruo in iuro,irlr.aiE-o"l,l,,, *u.u considered by the detajninq authority. wrr"" o"ir Iio.!|., *ur" considered, jt cannot be sairj,tnat,r,",.onoi,tonlj.o,"!"-. ," ,n" said order were not considered.,.
