law: Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
  11. Revocation of detention orders -
  (1) Without prejudice to provisions of section 21 of the General
  
  Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), a detention order may, at any time, be revoked
  
  or modified -
  (a) notwithstanding that the order has been
  
  made by an officer of a State Government, by that State Government or by the
  
  Central Government ;
  (b) notwithstanding that the order has been
  
  made by an officer of the Central Government or by a State Government, by the
  
  Central Government.
  (2) The revocation of a detention order shall not bar the making
  
  of another detention order under section 3 against the same person.
  COMMENTS
  Representation --- Disposal of
  There is no prescribed period either under the provisions of the
  
  Constitution or under the concerned detention law within which the
  
  representation should be dealt with. The use of the words "as soon as may
  
  be" occurring in article 22 (5) of the constitution reflects that the
  
  representation should be expeditiously considered and disposed of with due
  
  promptitude and diligence and with a sense of urgency and without avoidable
  
  delay. [ Rama Dhondu  Borado Vs. V.K. Sarf ,
  
  Commissioner of Police & Ors., JT 1989 (2) 579 ].
  What is reasonable dispatch depends on the facts and
  
  circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in that
  
  regard. In case the gap between the receipt of the representation and its
  
  consideration by the authority is so unreasonable and the explanation offered
  
  by the authority is so unsatisfactory, such order could vitiate the order of
  
  detention.[ibid].
  In a detention matter the Government is required to deal with
  
  the representation of a detenu expeditiously without
  
  avoidable delay. Undue and unexplained delay in disposing of the representation
  
  vitiates the detention order.[ Hussain  Erumban vs. Union of India, (1993) 3 crimes 627 (Delhi)].
  It is settled law that the representation made by the  detenu for seeking revocation of te 
  
  detention order must be dealt with promptly and in right earnest by the
  
  authorities concerned and they are not supposed to deal with the representation
  
  in a casual manner and allow the same to remain unattended for any period of
  
  time. If there occurs any undue delay in dealing with the representation it is
  
  incumbent upon the authorities to explain such delay. [ibid].
  Detaining Authority-Duty of
  In smt . Gracy 
  
  vs. State of Kerala , (1991 ) 41 DLT1, the Supreme
  
  Court observed that the detaining authority is obliged to consider the
  
  representation even if the same was simply addressed to the Advisory Board and
  
  not to him.
  "It being settled that the aforesaid deal obligation of
  
  consideration of the detenu’s representation by the
  
  Advisory Board and independently by the detaining authority flows from article
  
  22 (5) when only one representation is made and addressed to the detaining
  
  authority there is no reason to hold that the detaining authority is relieved
  
  of this obligation merely because the representation is addressed to the
  
  Advisory Board instead of the detaining authority and submitted to the Advisory
  
  Board during pendency of the reference before it. It
  
  is difficult to spell out such an inference from the contents of article 22 (5)
  
  in support of the contention of the learned Solicitor General. The contents of
  
  article 22(5) as well as the nature of duty imposed thereby on the detaining
  
  authority support the view that so long as there is a representation made by
  
  the detenu against the order of detention, the
  
  aforesaid dual obligation under article 22 (5) arises irrespective of the fact
  
  whether the representation is addressed to the detaining authority or to the
  
  Advisory Board or to both. The mode of address is only a matter of form which
  
  cannot whittle down the requirement of the constitutional mandate in article 22
  
  (5) enacted as one of the safeguard provided to the detenu 
  
  in case of preventive detention."
  It is clear that once the detenu makes
  
  a representation, it has to be considered by the detaining authority
  
  independent of its consideration by the Advisory Board.[ Yashvir 
  
  Singh vs. Administrator, Delhi & Ors., (1993) 3 Crimes 441 (Delhi)].