- (1.) This appeal arises against the judgment of the High court of Delhi rendered in the Writ Petition (Crl. ) No. 637/1992, dated 16/2/1993. In and by the said judgment, the High court has chosen to interfere at the pre-detention stage. Against the respondent the order of detention has been passed on 28/8/198282. The grounds of detention are yet to be served. The High court has chosen to allow the writ petition and quashed the order on three grounds, (1 the grounds of detention are common with those grounds of detention in the case of vijay Kumar; (2 Vijay Kumar and other accused were advised to be released by the Advisory Board constituted under Section 8 of the Act; and (3 there is relaxation to bring gold of foreign origin up to a certain extent on payment of certain duty.
(2.) Aggrieved by this judgment, the Administration of the National Capital of Delhi has preferred this appeal. The learned counsel, Mr Nambiar on behalf of the appellant, strongly relies on Additional Secy. to the Govt. of India v. Alka suhhash Gadia, particularly paragraph 536. On these basis it is submitted that this Court has catalogued the grounds for interference at the pre-detention stage. Not one of the grounds mentioned therein would be applicable to the facts of this case. In other words, the case on hand could not be brought within the ambit of these criteria. As a matter of fact, the same position is reiterated while approving of this ruling in State of T. N. v. P. K. Shamsudeen. Disregarding these principles, the High Court had chosen to embark upon new grounds. By that. a new approach totally unwarranted in cases of preventive detention has been made. It is surprising the High Court should state the ground of detention in the case herein and those of Vijay Kumar are common ignoring the vital fact that the grounds of detention as far as the respondent herein is concerned are yet to be disclosed. This point has been reiterated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant before the High Court. Then again merely because Vijay kumar and other detenus had been advised to be released by the Advisory board that does not mean in the case of the respondent also, the same could be. applied.
(3.) Lastly it is submitted that the court has clearly misunderstood the policy of liberalisation in relation to import of gold which has no bearing whatever in the case of preventive detention. On these grounds, it is submitted that the order of the High Court be set aside.;