https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182623 Preventive detention was upheld as valid on competence grounds because the order was made by the Minister concerned, and the representation was rejected by an authority competent under the applicable Rules of Business. The detention nevertheless failed because Article 22(5) required prompt supply of all basic facts and materials relied upon in the grounds of detention to enable an effective representation. Refusal to furnish the relied-upon statements and documents was mechanical, and the eventual supply was delayed by more than a month, which prevented a full and effective representation. The detention was therefore vitiated for breach of the constitutional safeguard. en-us Fri, 01 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 May 2016 11:51:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182623 Preventive detention was upheld as valid on competence grounds because the order was made by the Minister concerned, and the representation was rejected by an authority competent under the applicable Rules of Business. The detention nevertheless failed because Article 22(5) required prompt supply of all basic facts and materials relied upon in the grounds of detention to enable an effective representation. Refusal to furnish the relied-upon statements and documents was mechanical, and the eventual supply was delayed by more than a month, which prevented a full and effective representation. The detention was therefore vitiated for breach of the constitutional safeguard. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 01 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182623