https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73933 In preventive detention matters, a detenu's representation must be considered with utmost expedition, and unexplained inordinate delay breaches the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5). The State Government received the representation on 14 January 1987 and rejected it only on 26 February 1987 without a satisfactory explanation. The detention could not be sustained merely because the detenu had pursued other proceedings or because the representation was sent through an Advocate. The delay was held to vitiate the detention order, and the issue was decided in favour of the petitioner. en-us Tue, 13 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73933 In preventive detention matters, a detenu's representation must be considered with utmost expedition, and unexplained inordinate delay breaches the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5). The State Government received the representation on 14 January 1987 and rejected it only on 26 February 1987 without a satisfactory explanation. The detention could not be sustained merely because the detenu had pursued other proceedings or because the representation was sent through an Advocate. The delay was held to vitiate the detention order, and the issue was decided in favour of the petitioner. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 13 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73933