https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161609 SAFEMA did not apply where detention was revoked by the Central Government under its general revocation power, because the proviso to Section 2(2)(b) operated only when revocation was based on the Advisory Board's report or before such reference. The Court held that a concession could not expand the statute and that the High Court was wrong to treat the proviso as attracted. It also held that disposal of an earlier writ petition as infructuous was not an adjudication on validity, so a later writ petition challenging the detention order remained maintainable. The matter was remitted for fresh determination of the detention orders' legality. en-us Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Dec 2015 12:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161609 SAFEMA did not apply where detention was revoked by the Central Government under its general revocation power, because the proviso to Section 2(2)(b) operated only when revocation was based on the Advisory Board's report or before such reference. The Court held that a concession could not expand the statute and that the High Court was wrong to treat the proviso as attracted. It also held that disposal of an earlier writ petition as infructuous was not an adjudication on validity, so a later writ petition challenging the detention order remained maintainable. The matter was remitted for fresh determination of the detention orders' legality. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161609