https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105215 Delay in deciding a detenue's second representation does not invalidate preventive detention where the representation merely repeats earlier grounds and introduces no new facts. The Delhi High Court applied the principle that a successive representation based on the same material does not create a fresh right to insist on separate formal disposal so as to quash the detention order. As the detaining authority had considered and rejected the representation, and no changed or relevant circumstances were shown, the alleged lapse of time did not furnish a legal basis for interference with the detention. en-us Fri, 28 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:28:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105215 Delay in deciding a detenue's second representation does not invalidate preventive detention where the representation merely repeats earlier grounds and introduces no new facts. The Delhi High Court applied the principle that a successive representation based on the same material does not create a fresh right to insist on separate formal disposal so as to quash the detention order. As the detaining authority had considered and rejected the representation, and no changed or relevant circumstances were shown, the alleged lapse of time did not furnish a legal basis for interference with the detention. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 28 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105215