https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165243 Preventive detention safeguards were held satisfied where the detenu's representation was considered by an authorised Minister acting for the same Government that made the detention order; the law did not require the same individual who signed the order to decide the representation. The statutory scheme also did not require the State Government to first determine a fixed period of detention before referring the matter to the Advisory Board or confirming detention. On the facts, the representation was processed promptly and no inordinate delay was shown, so the continued detention was not vitiated. en-us Wed, 12 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Aug 2014 08:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165243 Preventive detention safeguards were held satisfied where the detenu's representation was considered by an authorised Minister acting for the same Government that made the detention order; the law did not require the same individual who signed the order to decide the representation. The statutory scheme also did not require the State Government to first determine a fixed period of detention before referring the matter to the Advisory Board or confirming detention. On the facts, the representation was processed promptly and no inordinate delay was shown, so the continued detention was not vitiated. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 12 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165243