ALEX C.JOSEPH V. THE UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/1051/2010

AI Insights

The case revolves around a detention order issued against Alex C. Joseph for his alleged involvement in smuggling activities, specifically the import of used cars without proper customs declaration. The petitioner challenged the detention order on grounds of it being arbitrary, illegal, and based on irrelevant considerations. The respondents, including the Union of India and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, defended the order, citing the petitioner's absconding behavior and the legal authority under which the order was issued. The court examined various precedents and legal provisions, ultimately upholding the detention order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722452 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Additional Secretary to The Government of India And Others v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia And Another, Rajinder Arora v. Union of India And Others, Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra And Another, Maqsood Yusuf Merchant v. Union of India And Another, T. A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala and Others, A. Mohammed Farook v. Jt. Secy. To G.O.I. And Others, Sayed Taher Bawamiya v. Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India and Others, Union of India and Others v. Parasmal Rampuria, Union of India and Another v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. Others, Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India and Others, Pooja Batra v. Union of India and Others, Lekha Nandakumar v. Joint Secretary to Government of India And Others, Shobha Jayaprakash v. Union of India & Ors., Kadhar Naina Ushman v. Union of India And Others
• Laws Referred To: Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, Customs Act, 1962
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P S BIJU; T ASAF ALI; C P UDAYABHANU
• Assessee Lawyers: M K DAMODARAN
• Keywords: Customs Duty; Delay in Execution; Detention Order; Smuggling; Pre-execution challenge
• Section: 112(b); 3(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 1051 of 2010(F) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------- ALEX C.JOSEPH, CHEKKATTU HOUSE, THADIYOOR, P.O.TIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA. BY SR. ADVOCATE SHRI M. K. DAMODARAN & BY ADVS. M/S. K.JAYAKUMAR, P.B. KRISHNAN, P.A. AUGUSTIAN, R. SURAJ KUMAR, GEETHA P. MENON, N. AJITH & NEELAKANDAN P.M. RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 2. JOINT SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, 6TH FLOOR, \"B WING\", JANPATH BHAVAN, JANPATH, NEW DELHI-110001. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA. ADDL. 4 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESENT ADDL. DIRECTOR MRS. RAMA MATHEW, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. C.J. MATHEW. W.P.(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F (ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 5.2.2010 IN IA.NO.1714/10). R1 & R2 BY SHRI P.S. BIJU, ADDL. CGSC. R3 BY SHRI T. ASAF ALI, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTIONS. ADDL.R4: BY SHRI C.P. UDAYA BHANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON 07/12/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 DATED 13-4-2000, TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO.673/5/2000-CUS.VII, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2. EXT.P2 DATED 24-1-2003, TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER NO.69 & 70/2003, DATED 24-1-2003, PASSED BY THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, WITH FORWARDING LETTER DATED 24-1-2003. EXT.P3 DATED 5-1-2000, TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO.275, 276 & 277/2000 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), COCHIN WITH FORWARDING LETTER DATED 7-12- 2000. EXT.P4 DATED 20-7-2005, TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SIB/28/99, PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN. EXT.P5 DATED 31-1-2008, TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO.15/2008, PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN. EXT.P6 DATED 9-7-2003, TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER NO.952 & 953/2003 PASSED BY THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH WITH FORWARDING LETTER DATD 23-7- 2003. EXT.P7 DATED 20-4-2001, TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NOS.C/V.507 & 508/2000, PASSED BY CEGAT, BANGALORE BENCH. EXT.P8 DATED 6-12-2004, TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NOS.C/354- 355/2004, PASSED BY CESTAT, BANGALORE BENCH. EXT.P9 DATED 2-2-2005, TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.C/354/04, PASSED BY THE CESTAT, BANGALORE BENCH. EXT.P10 DATED 8-3-2007, TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CUS. APPEAL NO.6 OF 2005. EXT.P11 DATED NIL, TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION DETAILS OF THE VEHICLE, KL- 03-D-9010. EXT.P12 DATED 23-7-1999, TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF K.A. JOSEPH, SENIOR MANAGER OF BANK OF BARODA RECORDED BY THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE-V, COIMBATORE. EXT.P12(A) DATED DO., TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P12. EXT.P13 DATED 30-3-2010, TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE S.I. OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA. EXT.P14 DATED 10-10-1992, TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2768, S.R.O., THIRUVALLA. EXT.P15 DATED 27-3-2010, TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE S.I. OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. WP(C).NO.1051/2010 F EXT.P16 DATED 10-1-2001, TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.8 OF 2001, SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA. EXT.P17 DATED 17-4-2010, TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER AND REPLY THERETO RECEIVED FROM THE C.J.M. COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P18 DATED 17-4-2010, TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER AND REPLY THERETO RECEIVED FROM JMFC, THIRUVALLA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-1 CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF EVENTS. EXT.R4(1) THE CONFIDENTIAL REPORT DATED 19.3.2003. EXT.R4(2) THE REPORT BY ASST. DIRECTOR, DRI, CALICUT DATED 28.2.2003. EXT.R4(3) ADJUDICATION ORDER NO.142/2010 BY THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN. EXT.R4(4 & 5) THE FIRST LOOK OUT CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVT. OF KERALA DATED 9.6.1999. EXT.R4(5) 2ND LOOK OUT CIRCULAR ISSUED BY GOVT. OF INDIA DATED 22.11.1999. EXT.R4(6) DECLARATION IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DATED 1.6.2000. EXT.R4(7) A REPORT FILED BEFORE JFCM COURT AT PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.R4(8) LETTER DATED 9.12.2003 FROM THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. EXT.R4(9) LETTER DATED 2.2.2010 FROM THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. EXT.R4(10, 11 & 12): COPIES OF THREE PASSPORTS BEING USED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R4(13) A LOC NO.6/SIC/2011(2) ISSUED ON 27.1.2011. EXT.R4-2(1) MAHAZAR DRAWN AT HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. EXT.R4-2(2) STATEMENT DATED 6.11.2011 RECORDED FROM ABEY JOHN AT HYDERABAD. EXT.R4-2(3) COPY OF THE PASSPORT IN THE NAME OF ABEY JOHN. //TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH & A. M. SHAFFIQUE, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO. 1051 OF 2010 F ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th December, 2011 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. An order of detention dated 13/4/2000 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) issued against the petitioner is challenged. A writ of certiorari is sought. 2. The Writ Petition was filed on 12/01/2010. As on the date of the Writ Petition, the impugned order had not been executed. While the Writ Petition was pending, that is on 06/11/2011, the impugned order has been enforced and the petitioner was taken into custody and he has been imprisoned. WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 2 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: It is averred that the order of detention has been passed for a wrong purpose based on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds, and that it is illegal, arbitrary and malafide. Import of four old and used cars by four non-resident Indians who had returned back to India for permanent settlement, is stated to be the basis of the impugned order. It is contended that customs duty had been paid by the importers. He refers to the fact that of the four cases which engaged the attention of the statutory authorities, three of the cases were decided in favour of the petitioner. In one of the cases which culminated in Exhibit P10 judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, the Court reduced the penalty from Rs.2,00,000/= to Rs.1,00,000/=. It is contended, inter alia, in the petition that there is gross delay of more than ten years in executing the order. 4. We heard Shri M. K. Damodaran, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Shri Biju, who appeared on behalf of WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 3 respondents 1 and 2, Union of India and Joint Secretary, Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue; Shri C.P Udaya Bhanu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent, namely the Additional Director of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Cochin which is the sponsoring authority and also Shri T. Asaf Ali, learned Director General of Prosecutions, appearing for the 3rd respondent Circle Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that though the detention order was not served and it is a case of pre-execution challenge, the Writ Petition is indeed maintainable. He drew our attention to the decisions of the Apex Court in Additional Secretary to The Government of India And Others v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia And Another (1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 496), Rajinder Arora v. Union of India And Others (2006 (4) SCC 796), Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra And Another ((2008) 16 SCC 14) and Maqsood Yusuf Merchant v. Union of India And WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 4 Another (2008 (16) SCC 31) among other decisions. According to learned senior counsel, on the facts of this case, clearly the petitioner is entitled to relief under the following head recognised by the Apex Court in Gadia's case, that is the order of detention has been issued by a person who is not authorised to issue the order of detention. He also relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Biram Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Others (1974 (4) SCC 573), which, no doubt, he fairly points out, has been over ruled in Haradhan Saha v. The State of West Bengal And Others (1975 (3) SCC 198). He would submit further that the latest decision on the point also supports him, namely Rekha v. State of T. Nadu Tr. Sec. to Govt. & Anr. (JT 2011 (4) SC 392). He would submit that there is no smuggling involved and the petitioner was only a car broker. He further relies on the decisions of this Court in Lekha Nandakumar v. Joint Secretary to Government of India And Others (2004 (3) ILR 355) and Shobha Jayaprakash v. Union of India & Ors. (2007 (3) KLJ 415). To buttress his argument WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 5 about the delay being fatal, he also relies on Kadhar Naina Ushman v. Union of India And Others(2008 (17) SCC 725). He further contends that the cases, four in number, related to the years 1998 and 1999. He points out that there was gross delay of nine months from the date of the alleged last incident involving the petitioner and the order of detention which is dated 13/04/2000. He would submit that the petitioner cannot be treated as an absconder and he did not abscond. The delay of ten years has clearly resulted in snapping of the link. No earnest efforts have been made to detain him. In this context, he relied on the pleadings. 6. Per contra Shri Biju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner was absconding. He took us through the pleadings. It is pointed out that he was caught when he was travelling on a false passport obtained on an assumed name. He also sought to distinguish the decisions relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. He further pointed out that the petitioner had actually shifted his base. He WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 6 further contended that the detention order itself was not in force because it has been executed and the Writ Petition will not lie. He would submit that the petitioner has remedies as provided under Section 8 of the Act and he can approach the Advisory Board and he can file representations, he points out. He would submit that the grounds of detention which have been served on the petitioner will actually reveal circumstances justifying the issuance of the order of detention. 7. Shri C. P. Udaya Bhanu, learned counsel for the Additional 4th respondent also submits that this is a case where the Writ Petition has become infructuous, as the impugned order has been executed. He would also submit that the petitioner was clearly an absconder. Steps had been taken. A red alert had been sounded. Petitioner had filed Writ Petitions in the High Courts at Delhi and Calcutta and, thereafter, he had withdrawn the same. The petitioner had made himself scarce and by remaining an absconder, he cannot defeat the order of detention, he contends. WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 7 He relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Sayed Taher Bawamiya v. Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India and Others (2002 Crl. L. J 259), reported also in (2000) 8 SCC 630. He pointed out that in that case, the delay of sixteen years did not avail the detenu as it was found that he was absconding. He would submit that the detenu had many passports. The Relevant Pleadings: We will refer to the relevant pleadings: The address of the detenu as shown in the Writ Petition is \"Chekkattu House, Thadiyoor, P.O. Tiruvalla, Pathanamthitta District, Kerala\" In Ground (aa) dealing with the grounds of delay in executing the order, it is averred that the petitioner was all through available at his residence, but no attempt was ever made to execute the order of detention on him and that in the premises, the delay of over eight years warrants interference by this Court. He further says that he has filed a Writ Petition challenging the order of detention before the High Court at Calcutta. The said Writ WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 8 Petition was thereafter dismissed for default as none appeared for the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner says that he made a representation to the Central Government for revocation of detention which was rejected in 2003. The said order was challenged before the High Court of Delhi. It is averred that at the time of hearing of the said Writ Application, a point was raised on behalf of the Union of India that the Delhi Court has no jurisdiction and it has no territorial jurisdiction, as all searches and seizures were conducted at Kerala and in the circumstances, the petition was withdrawn on 14/02/2005. In ground (dd) the petitioner avers that after withdrawing the cases from the Delhi High Court, the petitioner has been residing at his residence within the jurisdiction of this Court. 8. The fourth respondent in its application to implead has, inter alia, stated that it had reliable information with supporting documents that the petitioner is using Passport No.Z1703812 issued in the name of Abey John, S/o. John Mathew, for travelling WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 9 and that his original Passport Number is 1269046. It is submitted that he has taken a new Passport in the name Abey John affixing his photo and suppressing the real facts before the Passport Authorities. Still later, the additional fourth respondent, namely the sponsoring authority has filed a counter affidavit. It is, inter alia, stated that even though the order of detention was attempted to be served on him on his last known address at Thiruvalla in Pathanamthitta District, Kerala, he evaded service by absconding. It is stated, incidentally this is the same address which the petitioner flaunts in the present petition. Subsequently, action was taken under Section 7(1)(a) of the Act by publishing the order of detention in the gazette by which he was ordered to surrender for detention. Sufficient publicity was given at Thiruvalla and a report was submitted to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta to declare him as an absconder. He refused to surrender and he instead approached the High Court of Calcutta. The sponsoring authority was not made a party. It got itself WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 10 impleaded and sought time for presenting their case. Then, the petitioner withdrew the case. When the Investigating Agency started defending the case filed by the petitioner in the High Court of Delhi, he withdrew, it is stated. It is further specifically stated that immediately after promulgation of the detention order in the year 2000, he left his residence at Thiruvalla and migrated to UAE and continued in his smuggling activities. It is also stated that while staying at Sharjah, he not only continued with his smuggling and hawala operations, but also maintained his legal defence at various original and appellate forums, both departmental and judicial. He refused to comply with orders of authorities and made its enforcement impossible by keeping himself out of the range of Indian Law. It is further stated that a red alert was issued under the circumstances against him by the Government of India to apprehend him while travelling out of India through International Airports. It is further stated that upon coming to know of this, he succeeded in obtaining a passport from the Indian Embassy in WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 11 Dubai, UAE under an assumed name and address. Thus, he was able to hoodwink the Indian Immigration Authorities from enforcing the red alert during entrance and exit to and from India. It is also further stated while under exile at UAE, he was not only continuing in smuggling and hawala activities unabatedly, but was also pursuing Court battles through its agents and accomplices under various pretexts, damage suits, libel suits, appeal petitions at various forums including anticipatory bail applications and writ petitions before various High Courts in India. Most of the petitions were dismissed, it is stated. 9. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. He would deny the case that he was absconding. In paragraph 15 he would state, inter alia, as follows: \"My passport expired in 1993 and I have not travelled overseas since. I have not attempted to hoodwink the immigration authorities as alleged.” He further states as follows:- WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 12 \"17. Regarding filing of the Writ Petition challenging the impugned order before Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta and New Delhi, it is admitted that due to harassment made by DRI Officers by way of frequent summons, threat of arrest and detention order, petitioner had shifted to Calcutta for a short period and filed an appeal challenging the order of adjudication authority before appellate authorities. When adjudication authority passed 2 orders exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the impugned order before Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta. However, at the insistence of DRI, Customs Authority had filed an appeal challenging the orders where petitioner was exonerated. Due to the pendency of such appeal, the Hon'ble Court was not inclined to grant relief to the petitioner and the petitioner withdrawn the said petition. Thereafter petitioner came back to Kerala and continuing with litigation to prove his innocence. But when petitioner was again exonerated by Hon'ble Tribunal, in two cases, petitioner filed a fresh petition before the Hon'ble WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 13 High Court of Delhi challenging of impugned order. As stated by respondent in the present counter affidavit, the respondent submitted before Hon'ble Court that the order issued by Tribunal are not acceptable to them and they are proposing to file an appeal before higher authority. Hence petitioner decided to withdraw the case and defend the matter in proper forum. Now a stage has come where 3 out of 4 cases where the petitioner exonerated by proper authority and period of filing an appeal against said order is also expired. In such circumstances, there is no reason or justification to submit irrational argument that the department is proposing to file an appeal against the said orders. 18. The detention order is stated to be published in the official gazette. The order was produced by the official respondents in the course of the proceedings taken against me with reference to the four cars referred to in paragraphs 6A to D of the counter- affidavit. In the same breath it cannot be said that Ext.P1 is a secret document. I have not attempted to manipulate the legal system as alleged. The DRI is not entitled to insist that this Hon'ble Court must rely on WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 14 the contents of the sealed cover.” He further states in paragraph 20 that his permanent address is at Thadiyoor and there is no bar to having places of work at New Delhi or other places. He further denies the allegation that he entered India under an assumed name, passport, parentage etc. through the Mumbai Airport. Statement dated 10.8.2010 has been filed by the third respondent as directed by this Court. Therein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows: “3. The permanent address (Chakkattu House, Thadiyoor P.O., Thiruvalla) given by the petitioner in the writ petition is not in Thiruvalla Circle Limit. The said house is located in Koipuram Police Station limit. The petitioner also owns a house at Manjadi in Thiruvalla. I had made an enquiry on the petitioner and it revealed that no one is residing in the said house and a security by name Achankunju, age 50, Kunnupurayidathil Veedu, Nazhippara is posted for guarding the house. He says that he has joined there for duty only on 28-1-10 seeing an advertisement and he knows nothing about the former security. Jose. C. WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 15 Joseph, the brother of the petitioner appointed him there. 4. Warrants against the petitioner were issued to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvalla for execution and last request regarding the present status of the execution of the detention order from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kochi Regional Unit was received at Dy. SP Office, Thiruvalla on 29- 1-10. All possible efforts were made to locate the petitioner and during 2002 the then Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla Police Station even went to Coimbatore to arrest the petitioner. 5. On 8-6-10, Perinadu SI, N. Vijayan and Police party went to Tamilnadu for tracing the petitioner as per a reliable information received about him, that the son of the petitioner is studying in Desai (Manford) Police School at Erkkad, Salem, Tamilnadu and he used to visit his son there. And it came to know that the son of the petitioner Sangeeth Alex, a 5th standard student joined the school in that academic year and one Susi Alex, Pathenparambil Veedu, Kuttappuzha, Thiruvalla took his admission there and the petitioner never visited his son so far after he had WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 16 joined the school. 6. Searches were conducted by Dy. SP. Thiruvalla and Police party at the petitioner's relative's house at Kuttappuzha. But no useful information had been received about the petitioner so far. Enquiries are being continued. Detention order against the petitioner Alex. C. Joseph is pending with Thiruvalla Police Station. 7. As alleged in the petition, the petitioner is not residing in Thiruvalla. The allegation raised by the petitioner that no one is trying to execute the detention order against him is insignificant. He has gone somewhere outside Kerala and Police is trying to collect his whereabouts and arrival here to execute the Warrant.” 10. An additional Counter Affidavit was filed by the fourth respondent (sponsoring authority). This was, no doubt, filed on 28/11/2011 after commencement of the hearing. We notice that by order dated 25/02/2010, a Bench of this Court had passed the following Order: WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 17 \"Learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that over and above the Counter Affidavit placed on record, certain documents in sealed covers are also being presented. The Court Officer will receive the same and retain it in safe custody for the perusal of the Judges as and when necessary. In the light of the Counter Affidavit of the 4th respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner also seeks an adjournment. Counter Affidavits, if any, by any among the respondents will also be placed on record within three weeks.\" Accordingly, two sealed covers were produced by the fourth respondent. It was thereafter the case was admitted on 22/03/2010. When the hearing commenced, learned senior counsel for the petitioner objected to the Court perusing the contents of the two sealed covers. It is thereupon that the fourth respondent proceeded to file an additional Counter Affidavit dated 28/11/2011. Therein, it is, inter alia, stated that the original adjudicating authorities in the cases had found that the detenu had his specific part in the WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 18 offences alleged and had imposed penalties on him. It was further stated in respect of the contention of the petitioner that there was no involvement in offences during the period 2000 to 2011 that, it is contrary to the facts on record. Reference was placed on confidential report dated 19/02/2003 and produced as Ext.R4(1). It is further stated that Ext.R4(2) is a report by the Assistant Director, DRI, Calicut, dated 28/02/2003 indicating the smuggling of four cars by the petitioner. Ext.R4(3) is the adjudication order No.142/10 imposing a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs. In regard to the delay, it is alleged as follows: “But, this delay has to be appreciated on the factual circumstances of the availability of the petitioner in person at his declared address or even anywhere within the territories of India. The first look out circular against the petitioner was issued by the Director General of Police, Govt. of Kerala, in the year 1999 and a further Look Out Circular was issued by Govt. of India in the same year (Exbt - R4(4) & (5)). Both these circulars indicate that the petitioner WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 19 was keeping himself aloof from the law even before the issue of the Detention Order when the investigation was in progress. It is also an established fact the petitioner have never appeared before the investigating Officers of DRI during the investigations of the 4 cases mentioned above, and he had also not appeared for any personal hearing before the Adjudicating or Appellate authorities under Customs Act. Several summonses/letters calling for his appearance has been returned unclaimed from the petitioner's address and copies of the same are included in the documents presented to the petitioner on 12-11-2011. After the Detention Order was issued and the petitioner having absconded, the detaining authority made a declaration in the Gazette of India on 01-06-2000 (Ext.R4(6)). Thereafter, as he continued absconding, a report was filed before the JFCM Court at Pathanamthitta for initiating proceedings to declare the petitioner as an absconder (Exbt. R4(7)). Meanwhile, the Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta, had maintained a continuous surveillance at his last known address for execution of the order, but he was never found visiting that WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 20 address. Letters from the Deputy Supdt. of Police to that effect (Exbt.R4(8 & 9)) is submitted herewith. As it appears now, the petitioner was all along having several passports in various names and addresses and was frequently travelling in and out of India through airports away from Kerala, where he cannot be identified easily, and was thus perpetuating his smuggling activities unabatedly. Copies of 3 passports being used by him are submitted herewith (Exbt. R4(10, 11 & 12). Having come to know the details of passports used by him, a fresh LOC was issued on 27-01-2011 and subsequently, he was detained at Hyderabad International Airport when landing from UAE, in the name of Abey John. LOC No.6/SIC/2011 (12) attached as Exbt.R4(13). From the foregoing, it is amply clear that the non-execution of the Detention Order was less due to the failure of the Government, but more due to the agility of the petitioner in evading the clutches of law. To cap it all, the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvalla, in OS.8/2001 on 8-4-2005 have found that the petitioner is “neither residing in Thiruvalla, not in WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 21 Kerala” (Exhbt.R4(14).” 11. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit to the additional Counter Affidavit wherein he has stated, inter alia, that the additional Counter Affidavit is filed at the fag end, cannot be received on file and it will cause prejudice. Thereafter, it is stated as follows: “4. The orders of the original adjudication authority in the four cases referred to in Para 5(a) of the additional counter affidavit are not relevant. In the light of the subsequent proceedings it is evident that the subjective satisfaction was neither legal nor proper. The confidential reports referred to as Ext. R-4(1&2) have no relevance. No case or proceedings has been taken in respect of the vehicles mentioned there-in. I have no notice of Ext. R-4(3) proceedings. I am not having an alias as Alex Thomas. I don't have any residence/address at Chennai. Ext. R-4(3) has not been served on me at any point of time. WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 22 5. Ext. R-4(4) to (9) will not indicate that the authorities have made efforts execute the order of detention. I do not hold passport/passports in the name of Abey John as alleged. Ex.R4(10-11) are not copies of passports on which I have traveled abroad as alleged. The truncated pages of some passports cannot be produced in court. I was arrested at the domestic airport at Hyderabad. I am left with no forum to prove my innocence. The judgment in OS No.8/2005 will not reveal that I was not residing in Thiruvalla or Kerala as alleged.” Thereafter, no doubt, a second additional Counter Affidavit was filed by the sponsoring authority. However, we find that the petitioner may be justified in contending that we may not rely on it, as the copy was not served sufficiently early, so that a reply could be filed to those allegations. 12. It is necessary to refer to the decisions referred to by the petitioner. In T. A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala and Others (AIR 1990 SC 225), a case under the Act, the Court took the view that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 23 deciding whether delay has resulted in link being snapped. But the Court also held that when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the detention order, the Court has to scrutinise whether the delay is satisfactorily explained. The Court also held that unsatisfactory and unexplained delay in executing the order would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction. That was a case where there was a delay of three months in securing the arrest of the detenu. In Additional Secretary to the Government of India and Others v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia And Another (1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 496) a Bench of three Judges of the Apex Court was dealing with a pre- execution case and proceeded to deal with the matter as follows: \"30. As regards his last contention, viz. that to deny a right o the proposed detenu to challenge the order of detention and the grounds on which it is made before he is taken in custody is to deny him the remedy of judicial review of the impugned order which right is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, we find that this argument is also not well merited based WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 24 as it is on absolute assumptions. Firstly, as pointed out by the authorities discussed above, there is a difference between the existence of power and its exercise. Neither the Constitution including the provisions of Article 22 thereof nor the Act in question places any restriction on the powers of the High Court and this Court to review judicially the order of detention. The powers under Articles 226 and 32 are wide, and are untrammelled by any external restrictions, and can reach any executive order resulting in civil or criminal consequences. However, the courts have over the years evolved certain self- restraints for exercising these powers. They have done so in the interests of the administration of justice and for better and more efficient and informed exercise of the said powers. These self-imposed restraints are not confined to the review of the orders passed under detention law only. They extend to the orders passed and decisions made under all laws. It is in pursuance of this self-evolved judicial policy and in conformity with the self-imposed internal restrictions that the courts insist that the aggrieved person first allow the due operation and implementation of the concerned WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 25 law and exhaust the remedies provided by it before approaching the High Court and this Court to invoke their discretionary extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 respectively. That jurisdiction by its very nature is to be used sparingly and in circumstances where no other efficacious remedy is available. We have while discussing the relevant authorities earlier dealt in detail with the circumstances under which these extraordinary powers are used and are declined to be used by the courts. To accept Shri Jain's present contention would mean that the courts should disregard all these time-honoured and well-tested judicial self-restraints and norms and exercise their said powers, in every case before the detention order is executed. Secondly, as has been rightly pointed out by Shri Sibal for the appellants, as far as detention orders are concerned, if in every case, a detenu is permitted to challenge and seek the stay of the operation of the order before it is executed, the very purpose of the order and of the law under which it is made will be frustrated since such orders are in operation only for a limited period. Thirdly, and this WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 26 is more important, it is not correct to say that the courts have no power to entertain grievances against any detention order prior to its execution. The courts have the necessary power and they have used it in proper cases as has been pointed out above, 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 passed 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.” WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 27 In A. Mohammed Farook v. Jt. Secy. To G.O.I. And Others (2000 (2) SCC 360), the Court in a matter which was not a pre-execution case, found that the delay of forty days in executing the detention order, was fatal. The Court noted that the detenu was present in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on two days. But the Agencies were not diligent enough to serve the detention order on the detenu at the earliest. No report was filed to indicate as to what steps were taken. The Court set aside the order of detention and directed release of the detenu. In Rajinder Arora v. Union of India And Others (2006 (4) SCC 796), a Bench of two Judges had occasion to deal with a pre-execution challenge. The Court, inter alia, held as follows: \"11. A pre-detention order can be quashed only on a limited ground. This Court in Addl. Secy., Govt. of India v. Alka Subhash Gadia, laid down the criteria therefor upon a detailed consideration of the provisions of the preventive detention laws and the WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 28 right of the individual to assail an order of detention without surrendering.” Therein the Court referred to the decision in Gadia's Case. We find that the Court observed that no explanation whatsoever was offered by the respondent as to the long delay in issuing the detention order and the Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in T. A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala (1989 (4) SCC 741). It was held that the delay in issuing the order was not explained. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to hold as follows: \"24. A Division Bench of this Court in K.S. Nagamuthu v. State of T.N. struck down an order of detention on the ground that the relevant material had been withheld from the detaining authority, which in that case, was a letter of the detenu retracting from confession made by him. 25. Having regard to the findings aforementioned, we are of the opinion that Grounds (iii) and (iv) of the decision of this Court in Alka Subhash Gadia are attracted in the instant case.” WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 29 Next, in Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra And Another (2008 (16) SCC 14) a Bench of two Judges was dealing with a pre- execution challenge. The Court held, inter alia, that the five grounds mentioned in Gadia's case were not exhaustive, but only illustrative. It was further held that if a person can show that the detention order is clearly illegal, it would be a meaningless and futile exercise to yet send him to jail. It was further found that non-placement of relevant materials before the detaining authority vitiates the detention order and, therefore, Grounds (iii) and (iv) in Gadia's case are attracted. It was found that retractions from confessions were not placed before the detaining authority and that would certainly vitiate the detention. The Court also referred to its decision in Maqsood Yusuf Merchant v. Union of India (2008 (16) SCC 31) apparently invoked by the petitioner therein to contend that as the petitioner had stopped his illegal activities in 2006, the detention at that stage would be illegal. However, the Court found that as the petition was to be allowed on the ground that relevant WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 30 material was no placed before the detaining authority, it was not necessary to go into the said aspect. Maqsood Yusuf Merchant v. Union of India (2008 (16) SCC 31) was also a decision where the challenge was to the pre-execution detention order. Therein, the Court, inter alia, held as follows: \"5. Subsequently, the appellant moved the High Court against the order of detention and the same was disposed of with an observation that the petition was not maintainable at the pre-arrest stage and it was not open to the appellant to challenge the detention order on the grounds raised till such time as it was served or executed on the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has moved the present appeal. 6. There is no dispute that despite the fact that the order of detention was passed as far back as on 19.3.2002, the same could not be or has not been executed against the appellant till date. The detention order was in respect of the activities indulged in or said to have been indulged in by the appellant as far back as in 2002. In fact, on behalf of the Union of India it has been very fairly submitted on instruction WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 31 that since the order of detention was passed, the appellant has not indulged in similar activities.” The Court, therefore, found that there was no need to continue the order of detention, and that it would be an exercise in futility. He also relied on the judgments of this Court in Lekha Nandakumar v. Joint Secretary to Government of India And Others (ILR 2004 (3) KER. 355). Therein, dealing with the ground of unexplained delay in executing the order, namely a delay of four months, the Court, inter alia, held as follows: \"6. But, mere statement that he was absconding is not enough to explain the delay in execution of the order. Letter of the Superintendent of Police was shown to us by the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government. Mere statement that on three occasions when police searched his residential house the detenu was not there, is not a sufficient explanation. Affidavits were filed showing that the detenu was residing in his house throughout this period. He has appeared on 28th November, 2003 before the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1(1), Trichur WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 32 as can be seen from Ext.P7. He approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore on 3rd November, 2003 and sought permission to obtain the signature of Mr. Surendran on affidavits to prove that the detenu had nothing to do with the transactions. Ext.P10 proved the same. On 20th November, 2003 the Magistrate Court passed an order granting permission. Pursuant to that order, the detenu appeared before the Superintendent, Central Jail, Coimbatore on24th November, 2003, as can be seen from Ext.P11 letter of the Superintendent of Central Jail, Coimbatore. After several visits, he obtained the signature of Mr. Surendran only on 26th November, 2003. The detenu appeared before the Income Tax Officer on 26th December, 2003 also and again appeared on 29th December, 2003 to substantiate his case. Ext.p15 would show that he appeared before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin on 18th March, 2004. All these exhibits would show that the detenu was available at his place of residence and he was not absconding.” In Shobha Jayaprakash v. Union of India and Others (2007 (4) ILR WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 33 186), a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court was dealing with a case of delay in executing the detention order. There was a delay of three years. It was a case where, fairly detailed affidavits were filed by the Executing Agency as to the steps taken and to show that the detenu was absconding. Specific dates were stated in each year. The Court further observed that the records clearly disclosed that at no point of time, the Executing Agency had taken any serious effort to serve the order of detention. It is noted that the first police enquiry after the order of detention which was passed on 27/11/2003 was made only on 29/12/2003, that is for forty seven days nothing was done. It was further observed that the Executing Agency has not even asked the police constable to furnish a report of enquiry made by him in any of the places. More importantly, we notice that the Court took note of the fact that the detenu had participated in his daughter's wedding at Thrissur and the wedding invitation and photographs taken were produced. It was also found that the records did not disclose that any WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 34 submissions were recorded by the constables from either the detenu's wife or relatives or neighbours or any person acquainted with the detenu. The Court found the explanation unsatisfactory. No doubt, the Court also held that if the delay is satisfactorily explained, the delay would not be a ground. In Kadhar Naina Ushman v. Union of India And Others (2008 (17) SCC 725), an order under the Act was interfered with on the ground of delay in executing the order of detention. No doubt, the challenge was made after the execution of the order of detention. The Court found that the case of the State that the detenu was absconding and action was taken under Section 7(I)(b) of the Act and that all efforts made to implement the order were rendered futile, as the detenu was absconding were vague. It is found that there is nothing in the affidavit to show what steps were made between 23/10/2001 and 07/02/2002. The delay of three and a half months was found fatal. No doubt, that was a case where the detenu had been arrested and released on bail. The bail had not been opposed WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 35 by the Public Prosecutor. In that context, the Court noted that the respondents did not have a case that any applications had been made before the Magistrate either praying for cancellation of bail or that the detenu should not be granted exemption from personal appearance. 13. Now, we may also consider the decision of the Apex Court relied on by the respondents. In Sayed Taher Bawamiya v. Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India and Others ((2000) 8 SCC 630) it is important to note that it was a case of pre-execution challenge. Sixteen years had elapsed from the date of the order. It was noted that it had not been served on the proposed detenu, as he left India nearly eight years before the detention order. When action was taken under Section 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulations (Forfeiture of Property) Act, the detenu's brother filed a Writ Petition challenging the detention. The High Court took the view, after considering Gadia's case that it would not be appropriate to entertain the petition, as the detenu had not WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 36 surrendered. A Special Leave Petition was filed. There was also independent Writ Petition filed. The judgment purported to dispose of both proceedings. The Court proceeded to hold that though there is power to interfere, the scope is very limited in the matter of pre-execution detention matters. The Court proceeded to hold as follows: \"7. As we see it, the present case does not fall under any of the aforesaid five exceptions for the Court to interfere. It was contended that these exceptions are not exhaustive. We are unable to agree with this submission. Alka Subhash Gadia case shows that it is only in these five types of instances that the Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 32 at the pre- execution stage. The petitioner had sought to contend that the order which was passed was vague, extraneous and on irrelevant grounds, but there is no material for making such an averment for the simple reason that the order of detention and the grounds on which the said order is passed has not been placed on record inasmuch as the order has not yet been WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 37 executed. The petitioner does not have a copy of the same and therefore it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the non-existent order was passed on vague, extraneous or on irrelevant grounds.” 14. We must consider the argument of the respondents that the petitioner having been arrested, the matter has become infructuous. In considering this, we must also consider the rationale behind the Courts declining to interfere with pre- execution challenges to orders of detention. We would think that paragraphs 30 and 32 from the decision of the Apex Court in Additional Secretary To The Government of India And Others v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia And Another (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 496) would tend to throw light on this aspect: “.....That jurisdiction by its very nature is to be used sparingly and in circumstances where no other efficacious remedy is available. We have while discussing the relevant authorities earlier dealt in detail with the circumstances under which these extraordinary powers are used and are declined to be WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 38 used by the courts. To accept Shri Jain's present contention would mean that the courts should disregard all these time-honoured and well-tested judicial self-restraints and norms and exercise their said powers, in every case before the detention order is executed. Secondly, as has been rightly pointed out by Shri Sibal for the appellants, as far as detention orders are concerned if in every case a detenu is permitted to challenge and seek the stay of the operation of the order before it is executed, the very purpose of the order and of the law under which it is made will be frustrated since such orders are in operation only for a limited period. Thirdly, and this is more important, it is not correct to say that the courts have no power to entertain grievances against any detention order prior to its execution. The courts have the necessary power and they have used it in proper cases as has been pointed out above, 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 passed WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 39 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 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. 32. This still leaves open the question as to whether the detenu is entitled to the order of detention prior to its execution at least to verify whether it can be challenged at its pre-execution stage on the limited grounds available. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the answer to this question has to be firmly in the negative for various reasons. In the first instance, as stated earlier, the Constitution and the valid law made thereunder do not make any provision for the same. On the other hand, they permit the arrest and detention of a person without furnishing to WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 40 the detenu the order and the grounds thereof in advance. Secondly, when the order and the grounds are served and the detenu is in a position to make out prima facie, the limited grounds on which they can be successfully challenged, the courts, as pointed out earlier, have power even to grant bail to the detenu pending the final hearing of his petition. Alternatively, as stated earlier, the Court can and does hear such petition expeditiously to give the necessary relief to the detenu. Thirdly, in the rare cases where the detenu, before being served with them, learns of the detention order and the grounds on which it is made, and satisfies the Court of their existence by proper affirmation, the Court does not decline to entertain the writ petition even at the pre- execution stage, of course, on the very limited grounds stated above. The Court no doubt even in such cases is not obliged to interfere with the impugned order at that stage and may insist that the detenu should first submit to ti. It will, however, depend on the facts of each case. The decisions and the orders cited above show that in some genuine cases, the courts have exercised their powers at the pre-execution stage, WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 41 though such cases have been rare. This only emphasises the fact that the courts have power to interfere with the detention orders even at the pre- execution stage, but they are not obliged to do so, nor will it be proper for them o do so save in exceptional cases. Much less can a detenu claim such exercise of power as a matter of right. The discretion is of the Court and it has to be exercised judicially on well settled principles.” 15. In Union of India and Others v. Parasmal Rampuria ((1998) 8 SCC 402), a Bench of two Judges of the Apex Court was dealing with a pre-execution challenge to the detention order. There, the Court took the view that the order passed by the High Court was a very unusual order. The respondent/writ petitioner before surrendering, obtained an interim stay in a Writ Petition from a learned Single Judge. That was vacated. In the Division Bench, the Division Bench granted stay which was extended. The Apex Court took the view that the proper order was to call upon WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 42 the writ petitioner to surrender and then to have all his grievances examined on merits, after he had an opportunity to study the grounds of detention and to make his representation. We may not be justified in holding that as the petitioner has been arrested, the matter to be is closed as infructuous. If there is otherwise merit in the matter, the fact that he has been arrested during the pendency of the Writ Petition may not by itself justify the treating the Writ Petition as infructuous. 16. The contention raised by Shri M. K. Damodaran, learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the case at hand comes under the fifth ground declared by the Apex Court in Gadia's case, namely that the order of detention was passed by a person who had no authority to pass the same. We are not impressed by the said argument. The order of detention was made under the Act purportedly under Section 3 thereof. Section 3 of the Act empowers the Central Government of State Government or any officer of the Central Government not below the rank of a Joint WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 43 Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purpose of the Section by that Government or any officer of the State Government not below the rank of a Secretary to that Government specially empowered for the purpose of the section by the State Government to pass an order of detention. The detention order in this case has been passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India. There is nothing on record to show that the Joint Secretary is not empowered to pass the order. Therefore, we reject the contention based on the fifth ground in Gadia's case. We would also not think it appropriate to interfere with the matter on the ground of there being no smuggling under the Act, as smuggling has the same meaning as it has under the Customs Act. We do not think it appropriate in this proceedings to go into the said issue. 17. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Shri M. K. Damodaran also sought to draw support from the Judgment of the Apex Court in Pooja Batra v. Union of India and Others (2009) 5 WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 44 SCC 296). That was a case where the petitioner sought judicial review of an order of detention after the order was implemented. It was a case under the Act. The Court, inter alia, held as follows: \"18. There is no dispute that even for a solitary instance, if sufficient materials are available and if the detaining authority is subjectively satisfied that the detenu is indulging in smuggling activities which is detrimental to the interest of the Department, the detention order can be clamped. However, perusal of the grounds of Detention Order dated 5.12.2007 as well as the counter affidavit sworn to by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue dated 12.12.2008 amply demonstrate that the detaining authority has based its conclusion not only with referfence to Bill of Entry No.589144 dated 25.4.2007, but also relating to the eight bills of entry/consignments cleared earlier. 28. It is also not in dispute that on the date of the passing of the detention order, the authorities have issued notice calling for certain details in respect of import of those eight consignments. In other words, the said issue has not concluded and no adverse WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 45 finding against him is passed on the date of the passing of the detention order. In such circumstances, we are of the view that \"inonclusive state of investigation\" cannot legitimately help the authorities to pass an order of detention against the detenu on the perfunctory and inchoate material relied upon. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, Ground No.(iv) in Gadia's case is attracted, that is to say the order of detention is passed on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds. He invited our attention to the following statement in the Additional Counter Affidavit of the sponsoring authority: “The contention of the petitioner that the detention order was based only on the four cases mentioned above, is not true and hence not acceptable either.” 18. We are unable to agree. In Pooja Batra's case (supra), it was a case where the petitioner sought judicial review of the order of detention after it was executed. The order of detention with the grounds of detention were produced and the Court had the WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 46 opportunity to go through the same. In this case, however, the petitioner has not chosen to produce the grounds of detention by amending the Writ Petition. The contents of the grounds of detention are not brought to this Court's notice. Further, in this case, there were apparently four cases relating to Asha Sivasankaran Pillay, K.J. Tomy, Soman Sunil Kumar and M. H. Shanavas. The original orders passed by the Authorities are not produced by the petitioner. However, we notice from Ext.P3 (pages 68, 69 and 70 of the Writ Petition) that an order of confiscation and penalty was passed on 18.11.1999. This was in respect of Shri K. J. Tomy. Still further, Ext.P9 (at page 123 of the Writ Petition) reveals that there was another order of confiscation and penalty passed and the appellate order itself is dated 10.3.2000. The order of detention is dated 13.4.2000. Thus, unlike the facts before the Supreme Court in Pooja Batra's case, there were orders of penalty passed against the petitioner in two cases before the order of detention was passed. It was not a WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 47 solitary instance. Section 5A of the Act reads as follows: “5A. Grounds of detention severable.- Where a person has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention under sub-section (1) of section 3 which has been made on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds and accordingly- (a) such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is or are- (i) vague, (ii) non-existent, (iii) not relevant, (iv) not connected or not proximately connected with such person, or (v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever, and it is not, therefore, possible to hold that the Government or Officer making such other would have been satisfied as provided in sub-section (1) of section 3 with reference to the remaining ground or grounds and made the order of detention; WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 48 (b) the Government or Officer making the order of detention shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under the said sub-section (1) after being satisfied as provided in that sub-section with reference to the remaining ground or grounds. Comments: Section 5A applies where the detention is based on more than one ground, not where it is based on single ground; A. Sowkath Ali v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 2662.” 19. The next question is whether the petitioner is entitled to relief on the ground that the order was executed after inordinate delay of more than ten years. As held by the Apex Court, there can be no hard and fast rules and each case must be decided on the facts. If the proposed detenu absconds and the delay is explained, in the sense that the authorities offer a satisfactory explanation as to why the proposed detenu could not be apprehended, and that the authority had taken all possible steps, then the delay may not come to the rescue of the proposed detenu. WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 49 20. We must now consider whether the petitioner is entitled to relief on the ground of delay in passing the order and in executing the order. We must remind ourselves that this is a pre- execution challenge to the order of detention. Delay in execution is not one of the five grounds which have been declared in Gadia's case. In Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra And Another (2008 (16) SCC 14), though the Court was invited to pronounce on the issue of delay in a pre-execution challenge, the Apex Court did not pronounce on that issue. Still further, we must remind ourselves that, no doubt, the Court in Maqsood Yusuf Merchant v. Union of India And Another (2008 (16) SCC 31) did accept the petitioner's challenge to the detention on the ground that the detention was ordered in the year 2002 and the same could not be or has not been executed against the appellant till date. No doubt, it was a case where the Apex Court notes that the petitioner had unsuccessfully approached the High Court with a pre-execution challenge to the detention. It was found, however, that the detention order related WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 50 to activities in the year 2002. However, it is relevant to note that the Court recorded that on behalf of the Union of India it was submitted on instructions that since the order of detention was passed, the appellant had not indulged in similar activities. Learned counsel for the sponsoring authority would point out that unlike in the said case, this is a case where the authority has a definite case that the detenu had continued to indulge in activities which are sought to be prohibited. 21. In Sayed Taher Bawamiya v. Joint Secretary to The Govt. of India and Others ((2000) 8 SCC 630), a Bench of three Judges dealing with a pre-execution challenge, (as already noted) held as follows: \"7. As we see it, the present case does not fall under any of the aforesaid five exceptions for the court to interfere. It was contended that these exceptions are not exhaustive. We are unable to agree with this submission. Alka Subhash Gadia case shows that it is only in these five types of instances that the court may WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 51 exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 32 at the pre-execution stage. The petitioner had sought to contend that the order which was passed was vague, extraneous and on irrelevant grounds, but there is no material for making such an averment for the simple reason that the order of detention and the grounds on which the said order is passed, has not been placed on record inasmuch as the order has not been executed. The petitioner does not have a copy of the of the same and therefore it is not open to the pettiioner to contend that the non-existent order was passed on vague, extraneous or on irrelevant grounds.\" Again, in Union of India and Others v. Muneesh Suneja ((2001) 3 SCC 92), a Bench of two Judges of the Apex Court, after referring to Gadia's case and Sayed Taher Bawamiya's case (supra) took the view that interference in the pre-execution stage only can be on the exceptional circumstances which were set-forth in Gadia's case. Thereafter, the Court also proceeded to hold as follows: \"This Court has been categorical that in matters of pre-detention cases, interfence of court is not called WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 52 for except in the circumstances set-forth by us earlier. If this aspect is borne in mind, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana could not have quashed the order of detention either on the ground of delay in passing the impugned order or delay in executing the said order, for mere delay either in passing the order or execution thereof is not fatal except where the same stands unexplained. In the given circumstances of the case and if there are good reasons for delay in passing the order or in not giving effect to it, the same could be explained and those are not such grounds which could be made the basis for quashing the order of detention at a pre-detention stage. Therefore, following the decisions of this Court in Addl. Secy., to the Govt. of India v. alka Subhash Gadia and Sayed Taher Bawamiya v. Jt. Secy., to the Govt. of India, we hold that the order made by the High Court is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.\" No doubt, the Court also observed that the detention order being made as early as on 9.6.1998 and had not been implemented, it was necessary for the Authorities to consider whether detention is still WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 53 necessary or not. In Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India and Others ((2005) 8 SCC 276), a Bench of three Judges of the Apex Court was dealaing with a case under the Act. The Court was dealing with a pre-execution challenge. The Court dealt with the argument therein that expeditious steps must be taken both in the matter of passing the order of detention and in executing the same. It was the case of the appellant that both were lacking. It was contended that the order of detention was passed on 4.9.2002, while the complicity of the appellant was allegedly discovered on 29.8.2001. The order remained unexecuted till the date of the Writ Petition (25.6.2003). A Bench of three Judges referred to Gadia's case, Sayed Taher Bawamiya's case and Muneesh Suneja's case which we have already referred to, and proceeded to hold as follows, inter alia: \"14. Coming to the facts of this case, at the highest, the case of the appellant is that the order of detention was belatedly passed and the State of Bihar thereafter took no steps whatsoever to implement the WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 54 order of detention. Counsel for the appellant sought to bring this case under the third exception enumerated in Alka Subhash Gadia, namely, that the order was passed for a wrong purpose. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not possible to accept the submission that the order was passed for a wrong purpose. Apparently, the order has been passed with a view to prevent the appellant from smuggling goods or abetting the smuggling thereof, etc. The facts of the present case are no different from the facts in Muneesh Suneja. We do not find that the case falls within any of the exceptions enumerated in Alka Subhash Gadia. The High Court was, therefore, justified in refusing to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of detention at the pre-arrest stage. This appeal is, therefore, devoid of merit and is dismissed.\" 22. Therefore, there was a decision by a Bench of three Judges in Sayed Taher Bawamiya's case, wherein the Court clearly held that the five grounds mentioned in Gadia's case were exhaustive. The same view was taken clearly by a Bench of two WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 55 Judges in Union of India And Others v. Muneesh Suneja ((2001) 3 SCC 92) and what is more, yet another Bench of three Judges in Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India and Others ((2005) 8 SCC 276) took the same view. No doubt, in the last two cases, it was stated to be in the facts of the cases. It is thereafter that in Rajinder Arora v. Union of India And Others ((2006) 4 SCC 796), a Bench of two Judges dealing with a pre-execution challenge, apparently did refer to Gadia, Suneja and Naresh Kumar Goyal, which we have referred to earlier. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to find that grounds 3 and 4 in Gadia's case were attracted. As far as Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra And Another (2008 (16) SCC 14) is concerned, it was rendered by a Bench of two Judges. No doubt, it has proceeded to hold that the five grounds mentioned in Gadia's case were only illustrative and not exhaustive. To that extent, we are of the view that it is the law laid down by a Bench of three Judges and Bench of two Judges to the effect that the grounds for a pre-execution challenge are exhaustively laid down WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 56 in Gadia's case which must hold the field and, therefore, be treated as the law under Article 141. This conclusion of ours, is supported by a Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and Another v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. Others ((1989) 2 SCC 754) which has been elaboratedly considered and dealt with by a recent Full Bench of this Court in Raman Gopi And Another v. Kunju Raman Uthaman (2011 (4) KHC 9). In Union of India and Another v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. Others ((1989) 2 SCC 754), the Court held, inter alia, as follows: \"It is in order to guard against the possibility of inconsistent decisions on points of law by different Division Benches that the rule has been evolved, in order to promote consistency and certainty in the development of the law and its contemporary status, that the statement of the law by a Division Bench is considered binding on a Division Bench of the same or lesser number of Judges. This principle has been followed in India WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 57 by several generations of Judges. We may refer to a few of the recent cases on the point. In John martin v. State of West Bengal, 1975 (3) SCC 836, a Division Bench of three Judges found it right to follow the law declared in Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, 1975 (3) SCC 198, decided by a Division Bench of five Judges, in preference to Bhut Nath Mate v. State of West Bengal, 1974 (1) SCC 645 decided by a Division Bench of to Judges. Again in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 (Supp) SCC 1, Beg, J. held that the Constitution Bench of five Judges was bound by the Constitution Bench of thirteen Judges in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973 (4) SCC 225. In Ganapati Sitaram Balvalkar v. Waman Shripad Mage, 1981 (4) SCC 143 this Court expressly stated that the view taken on a point of law by a Division Bench of four Judges of this Court was binding on a Division Bench of three judges of the Court. And in Nattulal v. Radhe Lal, 1974 (2) SCC 365, this Court specifically observed that where the view expressed by two different Division Benches of this Court could not be reconciled, the pronouncement WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 58 of a Division Bench of a larger number of Judges had to be preferred over the decision of a Division Bench of a smaller number of Judges. This Court also laid down in Acharya Maharajshri Narandraprasadji Anandprasadji Maharaj v. State of Gujarat, 1975 (1) SCC 11 that even where the strength of two different Division benches consisted of the same number of Judges, it was not open to one Division Bench to decide the correctness or otherwise of the views of the other. The principle was reaffirmed in Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., 1985 (4) SCC 369 which noted that a Division Bench of two Judges of this Court in Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1981 (1) SCC 11 had differed from the view taken by an earlier Division Bench of two Judges in Motilal Paampat Sugar Mills v. State of U.P., 1979 (2) SCC 409 on the point whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be defeated by invoking the defence of excutive necessity, and holding that to do so was wholly unacceptable reference, was made to the well accepted and desirable practice of the later bench referring the WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 59 case to a Larger Bench when the learned Judges found that the situation called for such reference. 28. We are of opinion that a pronouncement of law by a Division Bench of this Court is binding on a Division Bench of the same or a smaller number of Judges, and in order that such decision be binding, it is not necessary that it should be a decision rendered by the Full Court or a Constitution Bench of this Court. We would, however, like to think that for the purpose of imparting certainty and endowing due authority decisions of this Court in the future should be rendered by Division Benches of at least three Judges unless, for compelling reasons, that is not conveniently possible.\" Apparently, the decison in Maqsood Yusuf Merchant v. Union of India And Another ((2008) 16 SCC 31) also is rendered by a Bench of two Judges. 23. In Ext.R4(1) dated 19.3.2003 which is issued by the Consul (Economic) of the Consulate General of India, Dubai (U.A.E), after referring to the investigation into the irregular WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 60 import of passenger cars from Dubai, it is stated as follows: \"It appears from the preliminary enquiry conducted that the persons, namely Harish Choksi, Jung Bahadur Singh @ Junglee both Mumbayities and one Mr. Alex Joseph resident of Alleppey, Cochin (Tel.No.98681-05277) are the main players of such car imports and they usually manipulate documents both in UAE as well as in India. These frauds are mainly committed to undervalue the vehicles for the purposes of evading Customs duty.” In Ext.R4(2) dated 28/02/2003 which is issued by the Assistant Director of the DRI, Cochin, it is stated as follows: “Field sources have indicated that this operation is being done by one Alex C. Joseph of Thiruvalla in Kerala, who is absconding on issuance of a Cofeposa Order in connection with the import of similar vehicles which were investigated by DRI Kerala Unit during 1999 - 2000. Presently, Sri Alex is importing, on an average, four cars per month through the Cochin Port, the WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 61 value of which works out to Rs.1 Crore per month. Earlier investigations have proved that the operator has sufficient clout at Official and political levels both in the country and in UAE as well to thwart all normal investigation/enquiry proceedings. His normal modus operandi is to bring the cars in the name of name lending passengers, file representations and court cases in the names of the importers, get the cars cleared with the help of temporary court orders and sell the cars immediately after clearance from the Customs which can never be traced thereafter.” Ext.R4(3) is the order dated 31/08/2010. By the same, a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs is seen levied on one Alex Thomas under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. It arose out of the import of a car in July, 2003. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent points out that the Alex Thomas referred to is the petitioner herein, as is evident from the fact that copy is marked to Alex Thomas alias Alex C. Joseph. The name of the petitioner is Alex C. Joseph. Ext.R4(12) purports to be a passport issued in the name of the petitioner. It was issued from Dubai on 20/07/1992. We notice that WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 62 the date of birth is shown as 28/07/1961. Thereafter, Ext.R4(11) passport is issued in the name of one Abey John. The passport number is T389522. It was issued on 20/10/1994 from Bombay. Ext.R4(11) also would appear to show that it was extended by issue of a fresh booklet. Thereafter, Ext.R4(10) is again a passport issued in the name of Abey John bearing No.Z1259046. It was issued from Dubai and it was issued on 04/10/2000 and the date of expiry is shown as 19/10/2004. Ext.R4(13) is an e-mail message dated 27/01/2011 wherein it was requested that a Look Out Circular (LOC) may be opened against the petitioner, wanted in connection with FIR No.673500 dated 13/04/2000 under the Act. It was specifically stated that the subject may also be using another passport in the name of Abey John. 24. We are of the view that no person who challenges the detention order at the pre-execution stage, has a legal right as held by the Constitution Bench in Gadia's case. It is a discretionary remedy. We have already held that the petitioner cannot claim the WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 63 benefit of Ground No.(v) in Gadia's case,as we are of the view that the order has been passed by the authority competent to pass such order. We are also of the view that the grounds mentioned in Gadia's case are exhaustive vide the judgment of the Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Sayed Taher Bawamiya's case (supra) and it has been followed by the Division Bench and also by another Three Judge Bench in Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India and Others ((2005) 8 SCC 276). Though an attempt was made in the last mentioned case to persuade the Court to hold that delay in issuing the order and implementing the order would be comprehended in Ground No.(iii) in Gadia's case, the same was repelled. A conflicting judgment rendered by a Bench of lesser strength cannot be the basis for persuading us to ignore the law which is binding on us on the basis of the judgment of a Bench of larger strength. We cannot be called upon to hold contrary to the Larger Judge Bench in Sayed Taher Bawamiya's case that what is stated in Gadia's case is only illustrative. WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 64 25. No doubt, in Rajinder Arora's case (2006 (4) SCC 796) a Bench of two Judges proceeded to hold that the delay caused in issuing the order of detention has not been explained and no reason whatsoever has been assigned. The Court found that, in regard to the contention that the status report was not placed before the detaining authority, the contention of the respondent was that it was not required to be served and had not been relied in the detention order. The Court referred to its earlier decision in another case wherein, the order of detention was struck down on the ground of withholding of relevant material from the detaining authority. It was on the basis of all such findings that it was stated that having regard to the findings Ground Nos.(iii) and (iv) of Gadia's case were attracted. It was also noted in the said case that though a raid was conducted on 26/05/2004 (till 2006, apparently when the judgment was rendered), no prosecution was launched. We notice that in fact, the Bench which rendered Naresh Kumar Goyal's case (2005 (8) SCC 276) which was a Three Judge Bench WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 65 had declined to hold that the order in the said case could not be treated as passed for a wrong purpose (Ground No.(iii) in Gadia's case) for the reason that it was passed belatedly and no steps were taken to implement it. Further, at any rate, even considering the case of delay in executing the order, we may notice that while it may be true that the respondents have not filed pleadings with the particulars of the steps taken with the full details, it appears to us that this is a clear case where the petitioner was absconding. No doubt, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would, in fact, point out that in the Counter Affidavits of respondents 1 and 2 and also the fourth respondent, it is stated that even while assuming that the order of detention had no proximate live link with an offence committed by the petitioner, the sponsoring authority, do now have ample data to indicate that the petitioner was involving himself in prejudicial activities while absconding himself to avoid detention under the order which is challenged in the petition. However, we notice that the additional fourth respondent has WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 66 indeed made available materials which tends to indicate that the petitioner was both absconding and also that after the order of detention, indulged in activities which are considered undesirable under the Act. It is most pertinent to note that the petitioner in the reply affidavit has set up a definite case that after 1993, he has not travelled overseas, and that his passport expired in 1993. It appears to be quite probable that the passport was taken by him in his name as evident from Ext.R4(12). But apparently, at least for the purpose of this Writ Petition, we are of the view that Exts.R4 (10) and R4(11) would appear to show that he had obtained two passports in the assumed name Abey John. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not denied that the photographs shown in Exts.R4(10) and R4(11) are not his photographs. According to the fourth respondent, arrest was made when he was landing from UAE in the Hyderabad International Airport in the name of Abey John. In the reply affidavit which we have extracted in paragraph (5), he no doubt, sets up the case that he was arrested at the WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 67 domestic airport at Hyderabad. But, he does not deny that he was detained in the name of Abey John. The additional fourth respondent in the impleading application also speaks of yet another passport, namely Z1703812 issued in the assumed name of Abey John. It is to be noted that it is a case where the petitioner sets up a definite case in Ground (dd) after withdrawing the case from the Delhi High Court, he was residing at his residence. This appears to be clearly incorrect. Further, it is also not a case where the petitioner has any specific case that he was at a particular place to attend any function, like a marriage etc., of that he had appeared in a Court. We are of the view that this is not a case where the petitioner was operating in a particular area. On the materials available, we would think that the petitioner was clearly absconding. As far as the delay in passing the order also, first of all, we have noticed the judgment in Naresh Kumar Goyal's case (2005 (8) SCC 276) rendered by a Bench of three Judges following, no doubt, Sayed Taher Bawamiya's case that the delay WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 68 in passing the order, inter alia, may not attract Ground No.(iii) in Gadia's case. It may be true that the pleading of the petitioner there there is a long delay, that is, more than two years from the alleged prejudicial activities and a lapse of ten months from the date of registration of a case against him, is not specifically denied as such. Learned counsel for the additional fourth respondent would point out that there was no delay as such. We have noticed that one of the original orders was passed on 18.11.1999. Further, the grounds of detention are not made available, with reference to which we could have considered the matter. Therefore, we do not think that in this Writ Petition the petitioner can seek relief on the said ground. 26. As far as the judgment of the Apex Court in Rekha v. State of T. Nadu Tr. Sec. to Govt. & Anr (JT 2011 (4) SC 392) is concerned, it was a challenge after detention was effected and, no doubt, therein the Court laid down that the detention may not be resorted to, when the ordinary law of the land can take care of such WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 69 a situation. An order of preventive detention is passed in a jurisdiction of suspicion and is essentially a prognosis of likely future conduct based on antecedents of a person. Particularly, in a pre-execution challenge, it may not be open to us to interfere with the order on the ground that the ordinary law of the land could take care of the situation. As on the date of the order of detention, there were indeed four cases, of which in respect of two, adjudications were completed. It may not be open to us to hold that on the basis of the subsequent exoneration in three out of the four cases that there was no basis to pass the order of detention and the matter must be viewed from the point of time when the order was made. We may also note that unlike the decision in Maqsood Yusuf Merchant v. Union of India And Another (2008 (16) SCC 31), the concerned authorities do have a case that the detenu was continuing with his operations which are sought to be prevented in law. In fact, we put it to the petitioner whether the petitioner is inclined to amend the Writ Petition and to seek judicial review. WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 70 Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, however, stated that the petitioner is pressing for orders as it is. We must state that we have not had the benefit of perusing the grounds of detention and for all purposes, despite the execution of the order, it remains a pre- execution challenge. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances presented before us and on our understanding of the law, we find no merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly, we dismiss the Writ Petition. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= A. M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE kbk. //True Copy// PS to Judge WP(C).NO.1051 OF 2010 F 71 "