https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325940 In preventive detention matters, Article 22(5) is satisfied where the detenu's representation receives real and proper consideration by the competent authority and the record shows application of mind; direct communication of the rejection order by that authority, or a speaking order, is not mandatory. The detention was therefore not invalidated merely because communication came through a subordinate officer. Where a detention order has been quashed and a substantial time has passed, continued custody cannot be assumed automatically; the detaining authority must reconsider whether further detention remains desirable in light of the elapsed period and current circumstances. The release order was set aside and fresh consideration of continued detention was directed within the time fixed. en-us Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Apr 2016 15:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325940 In preventive detention matters, Article 22(5) is satisfied where the detenu's representation receives real and proper consideration by the competent authority and the record shows application of mind; direct communication of the rejection order by that authority, or a speaking order, is not mandatory. The detention was therefore not invalidated merely because communication came through a subordinate officer. Where a detention order has been quashed and a substantial time has passed, continued custody cannot be assumed automatically; the detaining authority must reconsider whether further detention remains desirable in light of the elapsed period and current circumstances. The release order was set aside and fresh consideration of continued detention was directed within the time fixed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325940