Preventive detention requires all material facts and prompt representation disposal; omission and unexplained delay can invalidate detention.

Non-placement of a co-accused's revocation order before the detaining authority was treated as a material omission because preventive detention must rest on all relevant and vital material; the detention order was therefore vitiated. Unexplained gaps in disposal of the detenu's representation also failed the requirement of expeditious consideration under Article 22(5), and the continued detention was held illegal. The writ petitions were allowed and release was directed if the petitioners were not otherwise required in any other case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revocation order relating to a co-accused in the same incident was a relevant and material circumstance that ought to have been placed before and considered by the detaining authority before passing the detention order. (ii) Whether the delay in disposing of the detenu's representation was satisfactorily explained so as to comply with Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the revocation order relating to a co-accused in the same incident was a relevant and material circumstance that ought to have been placed before and considered by the detaining authority before passing the detention order.

Analysis: A detention order based on subjective satisfaction must be formed on all relevant and vital material. Where a co-accused is detained in the same transaction and the detention is later revoked on the advice of the Advisory Board, that fact is a material circumstance bearing on the same incident and common grounds. Non-placement of such material before the detaining authority deprives it of the opportunity to consider a circumstance that could reasonably affect its decision.

Conclusion: The revocation order was relevant material and its non-consideration vitiated the detention order.

Issue (ii): Whether the delay in disposing of the detenu's representation was satisfactorily explained so as to comply with Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: A representation against preventive detention must be considered expeditiously, and any delay must be explained by the authority concerned. The record showed unexplained gaps in the processing of the representation. Mere assertion that the total period was short was insufficient when portions of the delay remained unexplained. Such unexplained delay adversely affects continued detention.

Conclusion: The delay was not satisfactorily explained and the continued detention was rendered illegal.

Final Conclusion: The detention orders could not be sustained, and the writ petitions were allowed with a direction for release of the petitioners forthwith if their detention was not required in any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, all relevant and vital material must be placed before the detaining authority, and any unexplained delay in deciding a representation vitiates continued detention.

---