https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74015 Article 22(5) does not create a separate right for a detenu to make an initial representation to the specially empowered officer who signed a COFEPOSA detention order. Under the statutory scheme, the appropriate Government remains the detaining authority in substance, so the constitutional safeguard is satisfied by consideration of the representation by the Government. The absence of any revocation power in the officer supports the view that a prior representation to that officer would be futile and is not a legal prerequisite. Earlier cases on delay or non-consideration by the Government do not require first-level consideration by the signing officer in every case. en-us Wed, 07 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74015 Article 22(5) does not create a separate right for a detenu to make an initial representation to the specially empowered officer who signed a COFEPOSA detention order. Under the statutory scheme, the appropriate Government remains the detaining authority in substance, so the constitutional safeguard is satisfied by consideration of the representation by the Government. The absence of any revocation power in the officer supports the view that a prior representation to that officer would be futile and is not a legal prerequisite. Earlier cases on delay or non-consideration by the Government do not require first-level consideration by the signing officer in every case. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 07 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74015