https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175310 A subsequent representation that merely repeats earlier grievances without new grounds, fresh material, or supervening events does not require convening a fresh Advisory Board, and the rejection of such representation remains valid. On the facts, the detention had substantially run its course and the detenu had been on parole for a considerable period; in these exceptional circumstances, the Court held that he need not be sent back to custody to serve the remaining period of detention. The challenge to the detention therefore failed, but no further custodial incarceration was directed for the balance term. en-us Tue, 02 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:43:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175310 A subsequent representation that merely repeats earlier grievances without new grounds, fresh material, or supervening events does not require convening a fresh Advisory Board, and the rejection of such representation remains valid. On the facts, the detention had substantially run its course and the detenu had been on parole for a considerable period; in these exceptional circumstances, the Court held that he need not be sent back to custody to serve the remaining period of detention. The challenge to the detention therefore failed, but no further custodial incarceration was directed for the balance term. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175310