https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165238 Detention orders were treated as invalid where detenus specifically requested that their representations be copied and forwarded to the Central Government, but the detaining authority and the State Government refused. Article 22(5) was read with the statutory revocation power, including section 21 of the General Clauses Act, to mean that the constitutional opportunity to make an effective representation is not illusory when the Central Government can revoke the order. Refusal on a hyper-technical ground was considered unreasonable and a denial of effective consideration of the request for revocation. The concurrence accepted the factual entitlement to release, while noting reservations about equating the statutory revocation power with the constitutional safeguard. en-us Fri, 09 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Jul 2014 08:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165238 Detention orders were treated as invalid where detenus specifically requested that their representations be copied and forwarded to the Central Government, but the detaining authority and the State Government refused. Article 22(5) was read with the statutory revocation power, including section 21 of the General Clauses Act, to mean that the constitutional opportunity to make an effective representation is not illusory when the Central Government can revoke the order. Refusal on a hyper-technical ground was considered unreasonable and a denial of effective consideration of the request for revocation. The concurrence accepted the factual entitlement to release, while noting reservations about equating the statutory revocation power with the constitutional safeguard. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 09 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165238