S.C. Jain, J.

1. In this writ petition the detention order bearing No. F.5/28/92-Home (P-II) dated 12.5.92 passed against Mr. Sushil Kumar Bhutani son of Mr.Madan Lal under section 3 [1] read with 'Section 2 [f] of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA') has been challenged at the pre-execution stage.

2. Earlier also a criminal writ petition was filed by this petitioner being Cr.W.P. No. 261 of 1992 - Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India and Others, which was dismissed on 29.6.1992 as withdrawn.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Additional Secretary to the Government of India vs. Alka Subhash Gadia,[J.T. 1991 {1} S.C. 549] submitted that the impugned order of detention has been passed for a wrong purpose as there is substantial and unexplained-delay in passing the said order. The order of detention is not sustainable as there is substantial and unexplained delay in execution of the said order. The impugned order of detention has been passed on extraneous and.irrelevant grounds and it has been passed against "wrong person.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the Customs Preventive Officers seized certain cameras and photographic goods from M/s Madan Photo Store situated at 21, Kucha Chaudhary, Chandni Chowk, Delhi which is owned by petitioner's father Mr. Madan Lal and Mr. Sushil Kumar, the present petitioner, has nothing to do with p73 the said business. According to him, the said M/s Madan Photo Store is being looked after by his father, Mr. Madan Lal, and the petitioner has nothing to do with the same. According to the learned counsel, rent receipts of these premises are in the name of Mr. Madan Lal, the petitioner's father. The said shop was challaned under the Shops and Establishments Act and it was Mr. Madan Lal, who was imposed a fine by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 27.7.91 for violation of the provisions of the said Act. The recovery of the alleged smuggled goods from these premises cannot be made the basis for passing the detention order against this petitioner, Mr. Sushil Kumar, who has nothing to do with the business of the said concern, M/s Madan Photo Store. The detention order has been passed against a wrong person.

5. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the premises of M/s Madan Photo Store were searched on 16.2.92 but the impugned detention order was passed on 12.5.92 i.e. after about 3 months and that there is a substantial and unexplained delay in passing the said order. According to him, the order of detention is not sustainable as there is substantial and unexplained delay in execution of the said order and that the impugned order of detention has been passed on extraneous and irrelevant grounds. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even the residential address of the petitioner has been wrongly mentioned in the detention order. According to him, as per the ration card the petitioner's address is B-88, Derawal Nagar, Delhi, but the detention order bears the address as AC-610, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. The detention order was addressed to the petitioner's father's address and not to the petitioner's address. No efforts were made to serve this detention order at the residential address of the petitioner. Moreover, the incident is of 16.2.92 and now we are in October, 1993 and no useful purpose would be served in detaining the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned detention order passed in May, 1992.

6. Mr. P.S. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel strongly opposed this writ petition and submitted that as the earlier writ petition filed by this petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn, this second writ petition on the same grounds is not maintainable. He also argued that even assuming that delay in passing the order of detention was not satisfactorily explained, it necessarily does not give rise to an inference that t