Detention order challenge requires surrender first before merits can be pursued; interim protection was vacated.

Interim protection against enforcement of a detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act was held to be unsustainable where the detenue had not surrendered. The proper course was to vacate the ad interim and extended interim relief, require surrender first, and then allow the detention challenge to be pursued on all permissible grounds, including non-execution and alleged staleness. The Court stated it was not deciding the merits of the detention order, which were left for the High Court to examine in the pending writ petition after hearing both sides. The detention order was therefore permitted to be executed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ad interim and extended interim relief granted against a detention order should be vacated and the detenue directed to surrender before pursuing the challenge on merits.

Analysis: A detention order under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 had remained unexecuted because of interim protection granted in the writ proceedings. The proper course, where the detenue had not surrendered, was to require surrender first and permit challenge to the detention order thereafter on all permissible grounds, including grounds arising from non-execution and alleged staleness. The Court also made it clear that it was not expressing any view on the merits of the detention order, which were to be decided by the High Court in the pending writ petition after hearing the parties.

Conclusion: The interim relief was vacated, the respondent was directed to surrender, and the detention order was permitted to be executed; the challenge to the detention order was left open for consideration by the High Court after surrender.

---