<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (5) TMI 694 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259820</link>
    <description>Unexplained or inadequately explained delay in considering a detenu&#039;s representation under Article 22(5) violates the constitutional safeguard of prompt consideration of preventive detention representations. The authority must deal with such representation with due promptitude and reasonable dispatch; where delay at the level of the detaining authority, sponsoring authority, or final deciding authority is not satisfactorily accounted for, continued detention becomes constitutionally impermissible. On the stated facts, the delay in obtaining comments, verification, and final disposal was not satisfactorily explained, so the detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act was held invalid and the detenu was ordered to be released.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 May 2015 18:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=385734" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 694 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259820</link>
      <description>Unexplained or inadequately explained delay in considering a detenu&#039;s representation under Article 22(5) violates the constitutional safeguard of prompt consideration of preventive detention representations. The authority must deal with such representation with due promptitude and reasonable dispatch; where delay at the level of the detaining authority, sponsoring authority, or final deciding authority is not satisfactorily accounted for, continued detention becomes constitutionally impermissible. On the stated facts, the delay in obtaining comments, verification, and final disposal was not satisfactorily explained, so the detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act was held invalid and the detenu was ordered to be released.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259820</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>