TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a detention order could be challenged at the pre-execution stage outside the limited exceptions recognised for interference under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution.
Analysis: The order of detention had not been served on the proposed detenu, and the challenge was sought before execution of the detention order. The governing principle recognised that courts may interfere at the pre-execution stage only in narrowly defined situations, namely where the order is not made under the Act, is directed against the wrong person, is passed for a wrong purpose, rests on vague, extraneous or irrelevant grounds, or is issued by an authority lacking power. The present case did not fit within any of those categories. In the absence of service of the detention order and without the grounds of detention being available on record, the allegation that the order was vague, extraneous or irrelevant could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The pre-execution challenge was not maintainable on the facts, and the detention order could not be interfered with.
Ratio Decidendi: Pre-execution interference with a detention order under the Court's discretionary writ jurisdiction is permissible only within the limited recognised exceptions, and a challenge outside those exceptions is not maintainable.
TaxTMI 
