https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165245 Diplomatic communications addressed to governmental authorities were not treated as statutory representations requiring consideration under the preventive detention law, because they were not representations made to the competent authority in the statutory sense. The Court also held that detention was not vitiated by the absence of legal representation or friendly assistance before the Advisory Board, since no demand for such assistance was shown and no procedural prejudice was established. It further held that the Board was not required to give a separate compartment-wise finding on the date of its report where the interval from detention was short and no intervening circumstance arose. Allegations of unequal treatment and correspondence routed through the Government were rejected, and the detention orders were sustained. en-us Fri, 21 May 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165245 Diplomatic communications addressed to governmental authorities were not treated as statutory representations requiring consideration under the preventive detention law, because they were not representations made to the competent authority in the statutory sense. The Court also held that detention was not vitiated by the absence of legal representation or friendly assistance before the Advisory Board, since no demand for such assistance was shown and no procedural prejudice was established. It further held that the Board was not required to give a separate compartment-wise finding on the date of its report where the interval from detention was short and no intervening circumstance arose. Allegations of unequal treatment and correspondence routed through the Government were rejected, and the detention orders were sustained. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 21 May 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165245