https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109340 Article 22(5) requires a detenu's representation to be considered by the authority competent to deal with it, and not by every authority empowered to revoke or modify a preventive detention order. The detaining authority, State Government and Central Government each operate within their respective statutory fields, so a representation addressed to one need not be circulated for consideration by others. That approach preserves prompt consideration and avoids delay. Earlier decisions did not establish any rule that all authorities must consider representations not addressed to them. en-us Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Aug 2013 17:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109340 Article 22(5) requires a detenu's representation to be considered by the authority competent to deal with it, and not by every authority empowered to revoke or modify a preventive detention order. The detaining authority, State Government and Central Government each operate within their respective statutory fields, so a representation addressed to one need not be circulated for consideration by others. That approach preserves prompt consideration and avoids delay. Earlier decisions did not establish any rule that all authorities must consider representations not addressed to them. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109340