https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300163 Non-placement of a co-accused's revocation order before the detaining authority was treated as a material omission because preventive detention must rest on all relevant and vital material; the detention order was therefore vitiated. Unexplained gaps in disposal of the detenu's representation also failed the requirement of expeditious consideration under Article 22(5), and the continued detention was held illegal. The writ petitions were allowed and release was directed if the petitioners were not otherwise required in any other case. en-us Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Jan 2022 12:14:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300163 Non-placement of a co-accused's revocation order before the detaining authority was treated as a material omission because preventive detention must rest on all relevant and vital material; the detention order was therefore vitiated. Unexplained gaps in disposal of the detenu's representation also failed the requirement of expeditious consideration under Article 22(5), and the continued detention was held illegal. The writ petitions were allowed and release was directed if the petitioners were not otherwise required in any other case. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300163