Preventive detention representation must be dealt with promptly; unexplained delay in the first effective challenge vitiates detention.

Unexplained and unreasonable delay in considering the detenu's first effective representation against preventive detention vitiated the detention. The Court treated a representation addressed to the Governor as, in law, a representation to the State Government and held that it had to be considered with reasonable despatch. Earlier communications did not amount in substance to a representation seeking revocation or challenging validity, so they did not affect the issue. The detention was invalidated because the first effective representation was not transmitted and decided promptly.

---

---

Issues: Whether an unexplained and unreasonable delay in dealing with the detenu's representation to the Governor vitiated the detention, and whether such representation was to be treated as a representation to the State Government.

Analysis: A representation against preventive detention must be considered and disposed of with reasonable despatch. A representation addressed to the Governor is, in law, a representation to the State Government. The material on record showed that the first representation questioning the detention was made on 6.10.1991 to the Governor and that it was not transmitted and decided with due promptitude. The alleged earlier representations did not, in substance, seek revocation of the detention or question its validity, and therefore did not alter the position. The delay remained unexplained and unreasonable.

Conclusion: The delay in considering the first effective representation vitiated the detention, and the challenge to the detention succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, an effective representation must be treated with expedition, and unexplained delay in dealing with the first representation challenging detention invalidates the detention; a representation addressed to the Governor is treated as one made to the State Government.

---