BHARUCHA J.-In these three writ petitions the challenges are directed towards orders of detention passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (now referred to as "the Act."). The intended detenus under these orders are not in detention.

2. The learned Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petitions. It was that the habeas corpus jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is exercisable only to examine the legality of a detention when there is a detention and in no other case. The Advocate General submitted that an order of detention cannot be successfully challenged if it bas not been executed. In his submission, though the prayers in the petitions seek writs other than the writ of habeas corpus, the petitions are in substance habeas corpus petitions.

3. The Advocate-General cited in this regard the judgment of the Federal Court in Emperor v. Keshav Talpade1. This was an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against an order made in a detention case by the Federal Court. The Federal Court said that since the