https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199344 In preventive detention, Article 22(5) and the scheme of the Act were read to mean that the initial representation is ordinarily to be considered by the detaining authority, because it made the order and may revoke it under Section 11; the text says the contention that only the appropriate Government could deal with it was rejected. It also states that confirmation was timely on the record, and that the time taken to supply documents and process the representation did not amount to unreasonable delay. The second representation was before the Advisory Board, and a claimed mistaken belief about nationality did not invalidate detention absent proof that it affected the authority's satisfaction. en-us Thu, 31 May 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:30:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199344 In preventive detention, Article 22(5) and the scheme of the Act were read to mean that the initial representation is ordinarily to be considered by the detaining authority, because it made the order and may revoke it under Section 11; the text says the contention that only the appropriate Government could deal with it was rejected. It also states that confirmation was timely on the record, and that the time taken to supply documents and process the representation did not amount to unreasonable delay. The second representation was before the Advisory Board, and a claimed mistaken belief about nationality did not invalidate detention absent proof that it affected the authority's satisfaction. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 31 May 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199344