JUDGMENT
V.B. Bansal, J.
(1) Mahinder Singh has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the following prayers: I)Issue a Writ of Certiorari to ask the respondents to place on record the order of detention and grounds of detention passed in respect of the petitioner; ii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of detention passed in respect of the petitioner; iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revoke the order of detention passed in respect of the petitioner; iv) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
(2) According to the petitioner an order dated 12.7.1990 has been passed by the respondent No.2, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘COFEPOSA’) for the detention of the petitioner.
(3) It has inter alia been pleaded by the petitioner that detention orders were passed against four persons, including the petitioner and that the orders of detention against the other three persons have since been quashed on 9.4.1991 by this CourtinCrl.W.P.No.398/90; 389/90 and 521/90; and that the petitioner could get a copy of the detention order against Shyam Babu Verma, as also the grounds of detention and that the grounds of detention against the petitioner are similar and that the petitioner has not been served with the grounds of detenti on as yet though he has learnt that officials of the respondent visited his premises in his absence for executing the order of detention about which he received information from his servant.
(4) I have heard Ms.Sangeeta Nanchahal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jagdev Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has been undue delay in the execution of the detention order and that the co detenues having already been released by this Court, it is just and proper that the order of detention in respect of the petitioner is also quashed, otherwise it would be against the interest of the petitioner and he ought not to be dealt with differently from the persons whose detention order has since been quashed. It has also been submitted that the order of detention is vague and, thus, is in violation of the provisions of Article 20 of the Constitution. A prayer has, thus, been made for quashing of the detention order.
(6) The prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents who has submitted that the basic law on this subject is contained in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court incase Additional Secretary to the Government of India Vs. Alka Subhash Gadia and others . It has further been submitted that the detention order as also the grounds of detention have not been supplied to the petitioner and it is not permissible for the petitioner to ask for the same to be produced in Court. He has also submitted that the petitioner has to surrender and merely because detention order in respect of other three persons has been quashed cannot be a ground to accept this petition.
(7) It would at this stage be appropriate to quote the following passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Additional Secretary to the Government of India Vs. Alka Subhash Gadia and others (Supra)’ “THE Courts have the necessary power and they have used it in proper cases……… although such cases have been few and the grounds on which the courts have interfered with them at the pre-execution stage are necessarily very limited in scope and number, viz. where the courts are prima facie satisfied (i) that the impugned order is not based under the Act under which it is purported to have been passed, (ii) that it is sought to be executed against a wrong person; (iii) that it is passed for a wrong purpose; (iv) that it is passed on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds; or (v) that the authority which passed it had no authority to do so. The refusal by the courts to use their extraordinary powers of judicial review to interfere with the detention orders prior to their execution on any other ground does not amount to the abandonment of the said power or to their denial to the proposed detenu, but prevents their abuse and the perversion of the law in question.”
(8) It is the admitted case of the parties that the detention order has not been served upon the petitioner and, so, the grounds of detention have not been supplied to him. There is no doubt that a reply to the show cause notice has been filed by the respondents but it has clearly been mentioned therein that the petitioner has no locus to comment on the documents supplied to the co-detenue or on his detention order when he himself is absconding from the execution of the detention order. In these circumstances, merely because there is ambiguity in the reply to the show cause notice in as much as there is no specific denial of some of the averments, cannot be a ground to hold that the grounds of detention are before the Court to be considered. Merely because co-detenues have been released cannot be a ground to quash the order of detention and reference in this regard can be made to the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in case Cr.A.No.662/93 titled The Administrator of the National Capital of Delhi, Raj Niwas, Delhi VR. Sh. Prem Singh, decided on January 19, 1994.
(9) There is no dispute that law provides for arrest and detention of a person without furnishing to p112.00″ him in advance the order and the grounds thereof. After the grounds are served upon a detenue, it is open to him to urge one or more than one grounds in support of getting the order quashed and such a writ petition is heard expeditiously. It is only when a detenue is able to satisfy the Court about the existence of the grounds by proper affirmation that the Court may consider the validity of the order of detention with reference to the grounds given in Additional Secretary to the Government of India vs. Alka Subhash Gadia and others (Supra).
(10) It is not permissible for the petitioner to claim that the grounds of detention are vague when the me are not available. It cannot be said that the petitioner is being dealt with differently by not quashing the order which has not been served upon the petitioner. To the same effect is a pronouncement of this Court in case Cr.W.No-288/91 titled Inderjit Singh Chani Vs. Union of India & Another decided on January 4, 1994 reported as 1994 (1) Chandigarh Criminal Cases Hc 473.
(11) Keeping in view all the facts, I am clearly of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Dismissed.