Presumption of service for detention representation delivered by post, and failure to consider it breaches Article 22(5).

A preventive detention representation sent by speed post to the address stated in the grounds of detention was treated as served where postal records showed delivery, giving rise to a presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. A bare denial by the Union of India was insufficient to rebut that presumption. Because the representation was not disposed of, the Article 22(5) safeguard was breached, and the continued detention was rendered invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated because the representation made on behalf of the detenu was not disposed of by the Government, and whether service of the representation could be presumed when it was sent by speed post to the address specified in the grounds of detention.

Analysis: The representation was addressed to the Secretary to the Central Government at the address indicated in the detention grounds, and postal records showed delivery to the addressee. On those facts, a presumption of receipt arose under the general principles reflected in Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which deems service by post when a document is properly addressed, prepaid and posted. A bare denial by the Union of India was insufficient to displace that presumption. Since the representation had not been disposed of, the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) was violated.

Conclusion: The non-disposal of the representation rendered the continued detention invalid, and the detention order was liable to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: When a preventive detenu's representation is properly addressed and shown to have been delivered by post, service may be presumed, and unexplained failure to consider the representation with due promptitude violates Article 22(5) and vitiates the detention.

---