https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255781 Pre-execution interference with an unserved preventive detention order under Article 226 remains exceptional and is confined to narrow categories, including lack of jurisdiction, wrong person, wrong purpose, or reliance on vague, extraneous, or irrelevant grounds. A later precedent cited by the petitioner did not displace that restrictive approach. On the facts, none of the recognised exceptions was made out, and the petitioner's failure to surrender after cancellation of bail and evasion of process further weighed against exercise of writ discretion. The Court therefore declined to entertain the pre-execution challenge and found no basis to interfere with the unexecuted detention order. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255781 Pre-execution interference with an unserved preventive detention order under Article 226 remains exceptional and is confined to narrow categories, including lack of jurisdiction, wrong person, wrong purpose, or reliance on vague, extraneous, or irrelevant grounds. A later precedent cited by the petitioner did not displace that restrictive approach. On the facts, none of the recognised exceptions was made out, and the petitioner's failure to surrender after cancellation of bail and evasion of process further weighed against exercise of writ discretion. The Court therefore declined to entertain the pre-execution challenge and found no basis to interfere with the unexecuted detention order. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255781