2001 (5) TMI 908 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in execution of the detention order.
2. Lack of consideration of relevant aspects, including the payment of alleged evaded duty.
3. Revocation of detention orders in similar cases where payments have been made.
4. Absence of material linking the petitioner to illegal activities such as smuggling.
5. Preliminary objection regarding the challenge to the detention order before its execution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Execution of the Detention Order:
The petitioner argued that the delay in executing the detention order rendered it invalid. However, the court emphasized that preventive detention is an anticipatory measure, not punitive, and is based on the executive's subjective satisfaction. The court cited the case of Alka Subhash Gadia, noting that interference at the pre-execution stage is limited to specific exceptions, none of which applied here.

2. Lack of Consideration of Relevant Aspects:
The petitioner contended that the detention order failed to consider several aspects, particularly the payment of the alleged evaded duty. The court found no substance in this plea, referencing the case of Sayed Taher Bawamiya, which reiterated that interference at the pre-execution stage is limited to cases where the order is passed on vague, extraneous, or irrelevant grounds. The court concluded that the petitioner's case did not fall under these categories.

3. Revocation of Detention Orders in Similar Cases:
The petitioner highlighted instances where detention orders were revoked upon payment of duties. The court noted that a Committee constituted by the Central Government reviewed detention orders issued before 1-1-1996, which remained unexecuted. Since the petitioner's order was issued in July 1996, this notification did not apply. The court found no challenge to the rationale of the cut-off date in the petition, making this argument untenable.

4. Absence of Material Linking the Petitioner to Illegal Activities:
The petitioner argued there was no material linking him to smuggling activities and that he had surrendered his licenses and closed his business. The court pointed out that the grounds of detention had not yet been served, making it premature to assess the validity of these claims. The court declined to call for the records, deeming it impermissible at this stage.

5. Preliminary Objection Regarding Challenge Before Execution:
The respondent raised a preliminary objection, stating that the legality of the detention order should not be questioned before its execution. The court agreed, referencing the case of Union of India v. Parasmal Rampuria, which held that a proposed detenu must first surrender before challenging the detention order. The court reiterated that the proper course for the petitioner was to surrender and then have his grievances examined on merits.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition as misconceived, emphasizing that the petitioner must first surrender pursuant to the detention order and then seek redress for his grievances. The court found no grounds for interference at the pre-execution stage, as the petitioner's case did not fall under any of the exceptions outlined in the relevant case law.