Preventive detention requires proper consideration of the detenu's representation; failure to decide it vitiates the detention order.

In preventive detention matters, the Detaining Authority must consider and decide the detenu's representation as a mandatory safeguard. Here, the file showed that the authority dealt only with a separate parole request and did not apply its mind to the representation challenging detention; the return stating rejection of the representation was found incorrect. That failure amounted to non-application of mind and vitiated the detention order. The detention was therefore held unsustainable, quashed, and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated for failure of the Detaining Authority to consider and decide the detenu's representation against detention.

Analysis: The representation dated 10 May 1988 was placed before the Detaining Authority for a decision, but the file showed that the authority dealt only with a separate request for parole and did not apply its mind to the representation challenging detention. The return stating that the representation had been rejected was found to be incorrect. In preventive detention matters, consideration of the representation is a mandatory safeguard, and failure to do so amounts to non-application of mind and renders the detention unsustainable.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid for want of due consideration of the representation and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The impugned detention was quashed and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention cases, failure of the Detaining Authority to consider and decide the detenu's representation vitiates the detention order.

---