Delegated authority under preventive detention law validly considered State report; later executive order did not override the statutory notification.

A statutory notification delegating powers under the COFEPOSA Act was not displaced by a later executive office order on work allocation, because a non-statutory order cannot override a valid notification by implication. The Joint Secretary (Revenue), as the delegated authority, was competent to consider the State Government's report under Section 3(2), and that consideration was a statutory requirement distinct from the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5). Continued detention was therefore not vitiated on the ground of lack of competence, and the detention order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether consideration of the report of detention sent by the State Government under Section 3(2) of the COFEPOSA Act by the Joint Secretary (Revenue) was invalid for want of competence, and whether such non-consideration by the competent authority vitiated the continued detention.

Analysis: The 1991 notification issued under Rule 3 of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1991 delegated specified powers under the COFEPOSA Act to officers in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue). Section 3(2) was not expressly mentioned, but the notification covered the relevant powers of the Central Government. The later 1996 office order was an executive order dealing with allocation of work and did not supersede the statutory notification. A non-statutory order cannot replace a statutory notification by implication. The report under Section 3(2) was therefore capable of consideration by the Joint Secretary (Revenue), who was competent for that purpose. Consideration of such a report is a statutory requirement under the Act and is distinct from the constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5).

Conclusion: The Joint Secretary (Revenue) was competent to consider the report under Section 3(2) of the COFEPOSA Act, and the continued detention was not vitiated on the ground of lack of competence.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was upheld because the challenged consideration of the report was validly made by the delegated authority and did not infringe the constitutional safeguard invoked.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory notification delegating powers under preventive detention law is not displaced by a later executive order on the same subject, and the statutory consideration of a State Government report by a competent delegated authority is valid.

---