https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182554 Preventive detention under Article 22(5) and Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act was held illegal because the detenu's representation was not finally decided by the detaining authority itself. The Chief Secretary, acting as the specially empowered officer, had only recommended rejection, while the Administrator took the final decision. That was insufficient, as the statutory and constitutional safeguard required the detaining authority to consider and decide the representation so the detenu could pursue further remedies. Non-compliance with that requirement vitiated the continued detention, which was liable to be quashed and could not be sustained. en-us Wed, 31 Oct 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 May 2016 11:30:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182554 Preventive detention under Article 22(5) and Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act was held illegal because the detenu's representation was not finally decided by the detaining authority itself. The Chief Secretary, acting as the specially empowered officer, had only recommended rejection, while the Administrator took the final decision. That was insufficient, as the statutory and constitutional safeguard required the detaining authority to consider and decide the representation so the detenu could pursue further remedies. Non-compliance with that requirement vitiated the continued detention, which was liable to be quashed and could not be sustained. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 31 Oct 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182554