Pre-execution review of preventive detention is limited to narrow exceptions; disputed factual challenges do not justify interference.

Pre-execution writ review of a preventive detention order under the COFEPOSA is narrowly confined and cannot be used to reappraise sufficiency of material or disputed factual claims. Interference is permissible only in recognised exceptional cases, such as lack of authority, wrong person, wrong purpose, or vague or irrelevant grounds. Allegations of delay in execution, non-consideration of representation, absence of material, and reliance on a revocation notification were treated as disputed or unsuitable for determination before execution. No recognised exception was shown, so pre-execution interference was unavailable and the challenge to the detention order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 could be entertained at the pre-execution stage to challenge a detention order passed under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, and whether the case fell within any recognised exception permitting interference before execution.

Analysis: Preventive detention is a precautionary measure resting on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Judicial review at the pre-execution stage is narrowly confined and is not meant to reappraise the sufficiency of material or to test disputed factual claims unless the case clearly falls within recognised exceptions such as want of authority, wrong person, wrong purpose, or vague or irrelevant grounds. The challenge based on delay in execution, non-consideration of representation, absence of material, and reliance on the alleged revocation notification involved disputed questions or matters not available for proper adjudication before execution. The Court found that none of the exceptional categories permitting pre-execution interference was made out.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable for interference at the pre-execution stage and the challenge to the detention order failed.

---