The grounds for challenging a preventive detention order at the pre-execution stage are limited and not exhaustive. The delay in executing a detention order, particularly due to the detenu's evasion of the process of law, may not be a valid ground for challenging the order at the pre-execution stage.

JUDGMENT

Rajnesh Oswal, J. - This intra court appeal is arising out of judgment dated 10.02.2020, whereby the writ petition for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order of detention No. 17 of 2019 dated 23.10.2019 issued by respondent No. 2 has been dismissed by the learned writ court. The appellant has framed the following questions for consideration of this court:

(i) Whether the writ court without even putting other side to notice and examining the record of detention could have dismissed the petition on the ground that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the parameters of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Additional Secretary to the Government o India vs. Alka Subash Gadia and Deepak Bajaj v State of Maharashtra?

(ii) Whether the learned writ court was correct in dismissing the petition and taking a view contrary to the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in Ghulam Qadir Ganaie vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2011 (2) JKJ871?

(iii) Whether the life of the detention warrant stands expired in case the execution of the detention has not taken place ?

2. Mr. Assem Sawhney, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the case of the appellant fell within the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Alka Subash Gadia and Deepak Bajaj (supra) and further that the learned Single Judge could not have taken a view contrary to the Coordinate Bench in Ghulam Qadir Ganie's case (supra). He further argued that the life of the detention warrant stood expired and as such, the detention warrant cannot be executed after an inordinate delay.

3. On the contrary, Raman Sharma learned AAG vehemently argued that the detention warrant was issued on 23.10.2019 and the appellant evaded the execution of warrant. Thereafter, the appellant filed the writ petition for challenging the detention order. He further argued that the learned writ court was correct in dismissing the writ petition as the case of the appellant did not fall within the parameters laid down by the Apex Court for exercising the powers of judicial review to examine the validity of the detention order at a pre-execution stage. He further argued that the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in Ghulam Qadir Ganai's case (supra) was not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Heard and perused the record.

5. The first contention raised by the appellant is with regard to the scope of the judicial review for the purpose of examining the validity of order of detention at pre-execution stage.

6. The Apex Court in Alka Subash Gadia's case (supra) reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 496 has held that the detention order can be interfered at pre execution stage under following circumstances:

(a) that the order is not passed under the Act under which it is purported to have been passed;

(b) that it is sought to be executed against a wrong person;

(c) that it is passed for a wrong purpose;

(d) that it is passed on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds; or

(e) that the authority which has passed it has no authority to do so.

7. Further, these circumstances were reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepak Bajaj's case reported in (2008) 16 SCC 14 but the Hon'ble Apex Court at the same time held that these are only illustrative but not exhaustive. The same view was echoed by the Apex Court in Subash Popat Lal Dave v Union of India (2014) (1) SCC 280. In this judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that enquiry to examine the validity of detention order has been undertaken by the Apex Court in a very limited number of cases and in circumstances glaringly untenable at the pre execution stage. In nutshell, what emerges out from the judgments as mentioned above, is that a preventive detention order can be challenged at the pre execution stage, provided the petitioner/detenue satisfies the court that the detention order is clearly illegal and if it is found that it is clearly illegal then certainly he cannot be asked to go to jail and then chall