https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180880 Under the preventive detention scheme, the Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu was treated as able to act in his own authority, so the detention order was not invalid for want of Council of Ministers' aid and advice. The detenu's challenge based on non-supply of prior statements and service of the grounds in Gujarati failed because the relied-on materials were furnished and no prejudice to an effective representation was shown. The detenu had no enforceable right to legal representation, oral hearing, or appearance through counsel before the detaining authority or Advisory Board. The Advisory Board procedure was also upheld, as there was no right of cross-examination or rebuttal evidence in that setting. en-us Mon, 29 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Jul 2018 18:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180880 Under the preventive detention scheme, the Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu was treated as able to act in his own authority, so the detention order was not invalid for want of Council of Ministers' aid and advice. The detenu's challenge based on non-supply of prior statements and service of the grounds in Gujarati failed because the relied-on materials were furnished and no prejudice to an effective representation was shown. The detenu had no enforceable right to legal representation, oral hearing, or appearance through counsel before the detaining authority or Advisory Board. The Advisory Board procedure was also upheld, as there was no right of cross-examination or rebuttal evidence in that setting. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 29 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180880