ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the second respondent.

2. The second respondent is said to have sent a proposal to the first respondent for detaining the petitioner under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention Of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The first respondent has written to the second respondent seeking certain details about the writ petitioner. At this stage, this writ petition has been filed challenging the recommendatory proposal of the second respondent. The petitioner also wants this Court to quash the communication sent by the first respondent to the second respondent. In effect, the petitioner seeks relief at the hands of this Court at the pre-execution stage.

3. I wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner's case fell within the five parameters laid down in Alka Subhash Gadia case. The learned counsel responded that it is not necessary that he should bring his case within the five contingencies laid down therein. The question as to whether the detenu