JUDGMENT

BHARUCHA, J.:- Special leave to appeal granted.

2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras issuing a writ of mandamus against the present appellant directing it to forbear from implementing the order of detention issued by it against one Sheik Ahamed Hajee, son of Mammoo under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA).

3. The detention order was issued on 8th March 1988. On 5th April 1989 the detenu filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (being Writ Petition No.C.O.4202/W/ 89) impugning the detention order. The detenu stated therein that he was a resident of Aberdeen Bazar, Port Blair, and carried on business therefrom. The writ petition was admitted and the present appellant was restrained from detaining the detenu for a period of two weeks. On 19th April 1989 the injunction was extended to operate pending the disposal of the writ petition. On 12th April 1991, upon consideration of the counter-affidavit filed by the present appellant, the order of injunction was vacated. Thereupon, on 10th July 1991, the present writ petition was filed in Madras by the respondent to this appeal, who is a nephew of the detenu. By the judgment and order under appeal the writ petition was allowed upon the ground that there had been inordinate and unexplained delay in the implementation of the detention order. Emphasis was placed upon the fact that an advocate of Coimbatore had sworn an affidavit on 12th November 1991 wherein, as counsel for the detenu, he stated that the detenu had appeared before the Magistrates Court in the related criminal proceedings taken against him under the Customs Act on various dates between 4th December 1987 and 3rd August 1988, which statements were, admittedly, correct.

4. Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the present appellant, drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in The Additional Secretary to the Govenment of India v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia, (1991) 1 JT (SC) 549. This Court held thus:-

"It is not correct to say that the courts have no power to entertain grievances against any detention order prior to its execution. The courts have the necessary power and they have used it in proper cases as has been pointed out above, although such cases have been few and the grounds on which the courts have interfered with them at the pre-execution stage are necessarily very limited in scope and number, viz., where the courts are prima facie satisfied (1) that the impugned order is not passed under the Act under which it is purported to have been passed, (ii) that it is sought to be executed against a wrong person, (iii) that it is passed for a wrong purpose, (iv) that it is passed on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds, or (v) that the authority which passed it had no authority to do so. The refusal by the courts to use their extraordinary powers of judicial review to interfere with the detention orders prior to their execution on any other ground does not amount to the abandonment of the said power or to their denial to the proposed detenu, but prevents their abuse and the perversion of the law in question.

In Mr. Reddys submission, the case of the detenu did not fall within the limited scope set out in the aforesaid judgment and the High Court was, therefore, not justified in exercising its extraordinary powers to restrain the execution of the detention order.

5. Mr. B. Kumar, learned counsel for the present respondent, drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in N. K. Bapna v. Union of India (1992) 60 ELT 13 (SC). This Court there affirmed the judgment in the case of Alka Subhash Gadia (1991 (1) JT (SC) 549) aforementioned.

6. Much emphasis was laid by Mr. Kumar upon the delay in the execution of the detention order between 8th March .1988, when it was issued, a