2001 (1) TMI 903

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1973 ('the Act') directing the detention of the respondent by an order made on 9-6-1998. It appears that the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi challenging the validity of the said detention order which was, however, withdrawn on 15-7-1998 with liberty to file a fresh writ petition, if need be. Thereafter a petition was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and in the course of the petition filed before it the fact of having filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi was not disclosed. But, on the other hand, it is stated that no petition had been filed in any of the courts, including the Supreme Court for the id....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of detention no effective steps had been taken to execute the same except to make a vague allegation that the respondent was absconding. 4. This appeal is filed against the said order principally on the ground that the High Court could not interfere at pre-detention stage and no writ could have been issued in the light of the decision of this Court in Addl. Secretary to the Government of India v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 496, which made it clear that the courts should not interfere at the pre-detention stage except in exceptional circumstances such as : (i)that the impugned order is not passed under the Act under which it is purported to have been passed, (ii)that it is sought to be executed against a wrong perso....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... merit detention. He further pointed out that there is inordinate delay in making the order of detention and no effective steps were taken for executing the same, as noticed by the High Court and, therefore, in those circumstances, the High Court was justified in interfering with the order made by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under section 3 of the Act. He relied upon the decisions of this Court in Golam Hussain alias Gama v. Commissioner of Police [1994] 4 SCC 530, T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala [1989] 4 SCC 741, and Ahamed Mohaideen Zabbar v. State of T.N. [1999] 4 SCC 417. 7. The present case is not for issue of any writ of habeas corpus but for certain other types of reliefs. The matter must be examined as any....