https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393104 Article 22(5) requires a detenu's representation to be considered promptly and independently by the authority competent to grant relief. In COFEPOSA detention orders made by a specially empowered officer, that officer remains the detaining authority for this purpose and must consider the representation himself, in addition to the appropriate Government and the Central Government. The officer cannot postpone consideration merely because the matter has been referred to the Advisory Board, since his role is distinct from the Board process. On this view, failure to act from the date custody information was received and continued inaction until the Board's opinion caused unconstitutional delay and vitiated the detention. en-us Wed, 04 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Aug 2021 11:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393104 Article 22(5) requires a detenu's representation to be considered promptly and independently by the authority competent to grant relief. In COFEPOSA detention orders made by a specially empowered officer, that officer remains the detaining authority for this purpose and must consider the representation himself, in addition to the appropriate Government and the Central Government. The officer cannot postpone consideration merely because the matter has been referred to the Advisory Board, since his role is distinct from the Board process. On this view, failure to act from the date custody information was received and continued inaction until the Board's opinion caused unconstitutional delay and vitiated the detention. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393104