Important Point
In the matter of pre-detention cases interference of Court is not called for except in circumstances set forth in Alka Subhash Gadia case.

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.—Leave granted.

2. A writ petition was filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the validity of the order of detention passed against the respondent under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) directing the detention of the respondent by an order made on 9.6.1998. It appears that the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi challenging the validity of the said detention order which was, however, withdrawn on 15.7.1998 with liber­ty to file a fresh writ petition, if need be. Therefore a petition was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and in the course of the petition filed before it the fact of having filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi was not disclosed. But, on the other hand, it is stated that no petition had been filed in any of the courts, including the Supreme Court for the identical relief that had been sought for in the petition filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court took note of the fact that on 19.6.1997 the officials of the Enforcement Directorate, Jalandhar searched the residential premises of the respondent at Delhi and recovered Indian currency of Rs. 3 lakhs, 8 pieces of yellow metal appearing to be gold in the form of biscuits of 110 tolas and Deustche Marks 5300/-. It is alleged that business premises of the respondent at Karol Bagh was searched which proved futile. Even when the search of the business premises was going on a telephonic call was stated to have been re­ceived from one Jagdish who was bringing a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/-. Though the said Jagdish was not arrested, the respondent was arrested and produced before the Court of a Magistrate at Patiala on 21.6.1997. He was released on bail on 19.8.1997 by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. He was granted bail inasmuch as even after 60 days from the date of his arrest no complaint had been filed, but on 9.6.1998 the detention order was passed.

The High Court, in the course of its order, took note of the two grounds, firstly, that there has been delay in making the order of detention inasmuch as the said order had been passed on 9.6.1998 but the incident in respect of which the said detention order had been passed is stated to have taken place on 19.6.1997, nearly after about a year, and secondly, that after making the order of ­detention no effective steps had been taken to execute the same except to make a vague allegation that the respondent was abscon­ding.

3. This appeal is filed against the said order principally on the ground that the High Court could not interfere at pre-detention stage and no writ could have been issued in the light of the decision of this Court in Additional Secretary to the Government of India & Ors. v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia & Anr.1, which made it clear that the courts should not interfere at the pre-detention stage except in exceptional circumstances such as (i) that the impugned order is not passed under the Act under which it is purported to have been passed,

(ii) that it is sought to be executed against a wrong person,

(iii) that it is passed for a wrong purpose,

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

(v) that the authority which passed it had no authority to do so.

This principle has been reiterated by this Court in Sayed Thaer Bawa­miya v. Joint Secretary to the Government of India & Ors.2.

4. The learned Additional Solicitor General pointed out that neither of the two grounds set out in the course of the order of the High Court are such of those which fall within the ratio of the decision in Additional Secretary to the Government of India & Ors. v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia & Anr. (supra) so as to interfere at the pre-execution stage with the detention order. Further, he contended that no part of cause of action having arisen in t