https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175313 An earlier Article 226 challenge did not bar a later Article 32 petition on res judicata grounds, so the preliminary objection failed. In preventive detention matters, Article 22(5) requires the detenu's representation to be considered promptly and independently by the appropriate Government, and that duty is not displaced by reference to an Advisory Board. On the facts stated, the State gave no explanation for the inordinate delay in dealing with the representation, so the detention could not be sustained and was held illegal. en-us Tue, 18 Jul 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:20:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175313 An earlier Article 226 challenge did not bar a later Article 32 petition on res judicata grounds, so the preliminary objection failed. In preventive detention matters, Article 22(5) requires the detenu's representation to be considered promptly and independently by the appropriate Government, and that duty is not displaced by reference to an Advisory Board. On the facts stated, the State gave no explanation for the inordinate delay in dealing with the representation, so the detention could not be sustained and was held illegal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 18 Jul 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175313