TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was vitiated for non-consideration of a representation said to have been sent before the order of detention and allegedly received by some other authorities; (ii) Whether the detention was invalid because the incidents referred to in the grounds were stale.
Issue (i): Whether the detention order was vitiated for non-consideration of a representation said to have been sent before the order of detention and allegedly received by some other authorities.
Analysis: The right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India requires consideration of a representation against detention by the appropriate authority after the detention order is made and served. A prior representation addressed to other authorities does not, by itself, establish receipt by the detaining authority. No presumption can be drawn merely because some other addressees received the communication. A representation to the Advisory Board before the detention order is also legally irrelevant. The record did not establish non-consideration by the detaining authority.
Conclusion: The detention order was not liable to be quashed on this ground, and the finding of the High Court was incorrect.
Issue (ii): Whether the detention was invalid because the incidents referred to in the grounds were stale.
Analysis: The grounds of detention referred to several incidents, including one occurring shortly before the detention order. On the facts, the last incident was proximate to the order and the material could not be treated as stale. The detention order was therefore supported by live and proximate material.
Conclusion: The detention order was not invalid on the ground of staleness.
Final Conclusion: The High Court's order quashing the detention was set aside and the challenge to the detention failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order is not vitiated unless non-consideration of a representation is shown against the authority required to consider it after the order is made, and detention cannot be struck down for staleness where the relied-upon incidents maintain a proximate temporal nexus with the order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
