The court's power to interfere with a detention order at the pre-detention stage is limited and must be exercised judicially in the facts of the given case.

N.K. Jain, J.

1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 24. 1999 in W.P. No. 4993 of 1999 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition seeking to quash order dated 12. 1999 on the ground of delay.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of this writ appeal as alleged, are that the petitioner S.Rajendran is the proprietor of M/s.Sterling Exchange Corporation. He is also the Managing Director of M/s.Goodluck Forex (I) Ltd. A computer with data particulars and cash of Rs. 16 lakhs were seized on a search conducted in the office of the petitioner on 212. 1997. The petitioner was arrested on 22. 1998 and remanded to judicial custody. It is alleged that he filed W.P. No. 1909 of 1998, for quashing the proceedings dated 16. 1998 whereunder the time limit for retaining the documents seized, was extended. Another W.P. No. 1910 of 1999 was filed for the return of seized currency of Rs. 16 lakhs. It is also alleged that W.P. No. 6184 of 1999 was filed against the show cause notice issued as to why the seized money and amounts blocked in various accounts in a sum of Rs. 38 lakhs and odd should not be confiscated. The petitioner was ordered to be detained under COFEPOSA Act, 1974, vide order dated 12. 1999, against which this writ petition has been filed.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed detailed counter denying the allegations, as alleged. It is submitted that before execution of the detention order, the petitioner cannot ask for copy of the detention order of the grounds, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned single Judge, by an elaborate order, holding that it cannot be said that there is delay in executing the order of detention on the part of the respondents, dismissed the writ petition.

5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of detention has been passed without jurisdiction and it is based on vague and extraneous materials. As such, the same is liable to be set aside on the ground of delay. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied on (1) Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh. v. M.M.Mehta , Commissioner of Police, 1995 (3) SCC 237; (2) Ahamed Mohaideen Zabbar v. State of Tamil Nadu , 1999 (3) Scale 141; (3) Balwinder Singh, v. State of Punjab , 1996 Crl. L.J.1533; and (4) Anwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan , 1995 (2) Crimes 419.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant has been evading detention since 12. 1999. He also submits that before execution of the detention order, the appellant cannot seek for copy of detention order or the grounds, counsel further submits that the search was made on 212. 1997. Appellant had obtained statutory bail, but did not appeal either before the Director or the concerned court. Rather, he absconded and went abroad. As such, bail order was cancelled. Order under Sec.3(1) was published directing him to appear within 7 days before the 5th respondent. Counsel further submits that the decisions relied on by the appellant are either habeas corpus petitions or petitions under under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. As such, they are not applicable to the facts of the given case. Therefore, no direction as prayed for can be granted. Counsel relied on (1) Addl. Secretary to Government v. Smt.Alka Subhash Gadia , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 496; (2) Haja Mohaideen v. Union of India , 1991 (2) L.W. (Crl) 383; (3) Subhash Muljimal Gandhi v. L.Himingdeen , 1994 (3) Crimes 242 and (4) Secretary, Home Department v. Abdul Azeez 1995 (III) C.C.R 654.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record and the case law. Though it is not necessary to deal with each case cited, as the learned counsel argued vehemently, we discuss the case law cited by either party.

8. In Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh’s Case, 1995 (3) SCC 237, the petitioner was detained on 18. 1994 alleging that he was found to be habitually indulging in criminal and anti-social activities.