Preventive detention challenge fails where a repetitive second representation adds no new facts and delay alone does not invalidate detention.

Delay in deciding a detenue's second representation does not invalidate preventive detention where the representation merely repeats earlier grounds and introduces no new facts. The Delhi High Court applied the principle that a successive representation based on the same material does not create a fresh right to insist on separate formal disposal so as to quash the detention order. As the detaining authority had considered and rejected the representation, and no changed or relevant circumstances were shown, the alleged lapse of time did not furnish a legal basis for interference with the detention.

---

---

Issues: Whether delay in disposing of the detenu's second representation, which did not disclose any new ground or fresh facts, could by itself invalidate the detention order.

Analysis: The second representation was found to be substantially a repetition of the earlier representation and did not introduce any new factual basis for reconsideration. The Court applied the principle that where a successive representation is based on the same grounds already urged, there is no right to insist on fresh formal disposal so as to invalidate the detention order merely because some time elapsed in its consideration. Since the detaining authority in fact considered and rejected the representation, and the representation did not raise changed or relevant new circumstances, the alleged delay did not furnish a legal basis for quashing the detention.

Conclusion: The detention order could not be quashed on the ground of delay in deciding the second representation, and the contention was rejected.

---