1. An order of detention dated 13/4/2000 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) issued against the petitioner is challenged. A writ of certiorari is sought.

2. The Writ Petition was filed on 12/01/2010. As on the date of the Writ Petition, the impugned order had not been executed. While the Writ Petition was pending, that is on 06/11/2011, the impugned order has been enforced and the petitioner was taken into custody and he has been imprisoned.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: It is averred that the order of detention has been passed for a wrong purpose based on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds, and that it is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. Import of four old and used cars by four non-resident Indians who had returned back to India for permanent settlement, is stated to be the basis of the impugned order. It is contended that customs duty had been paid by the importers. He refers to the fact that of the four cases which engaged the attention of the statutory authorities, three of the cases were decided in favour of the petitioner. In one of the cases which culminated in Ext. P10 judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, the Court reduced the penalty from Rs.2,00,000/= to Rs.1,00,000/=. It is contended, inter alia, in the petition that there is gross delay of more than ten years in executing the order.

4. We heard Shri. M. K. Damodaran, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Shri. Biju, who appeared on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, Union of India and Joint Secretary, Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue; Shri. C. P Udaya Bhanu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent, namely the Additional Director of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Cochin which is the sponsoring authority and also Shri. T. Asaf Ali, learned Director General of Prosecutions, appearing for the 3rd respondent Circle Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that though the detention order was not served and it is a case of pre-execution challenge, the Writ Petition is indeed maintainable. He drew our attention to the decisions of the Apex Court in Additional Secretary to the Government of India and Others Vs. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and Another (1992 Supp (1) SCC 496), Rajinder Arora Vs. Union of India and Others (2006 (4) SCC 796), Deepak Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another ((2008) 16 SCC 14), and Maqsood Yusuf Merchant Vs. Union of India and Another (2008 (16) SCC 31) among other decisions. According to learned Senior Counsel, on the facts of this case, clearly the petitioner is entitled to relief under the following head recognised by the Apex Court in Gadia's case, that is the order of detention has been issued by a person who is not authorised to issue the order of detention. He also relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Biram Chand Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others ((1974) 4 SCC 573), which, no doubt, he fairly points out, has been over ruled in Haradhan Saha Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others ((1975) 3 SCC 198). He would submit further that the latest decision on the point also supports him, namely Rekha Vs. State of T. Nadu Tr. Sec. to Govt. and Another (JT 2011 (4) SC 392). He would submit that there is no smuggling involved and the petitioner was only a car broker. He further relies on the decisions of this Court in Lekha Nandakumar Vs. Joint Secretary to Government of India and Others (2004 (3) ILR 355) and Shobha Jayaprakash Vs. Union of India and Others (2007 (3) KLJ 415). To buttress his argument about the delay being fatal, he also relies on Kadhar Naina Ushman Vs. Union of India and Others (2008 (17) SCC 725). He further contends that the cases, four in number, related to the years 1998 and 1999. He points out that there was gross delay of nine months fr