R.D.Mathur, J. - (1.) An order of detention under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) was passed against the petitioner on July 2, 2000 by the District Magistrate, Gonda. Before order could be executed, the present writ petition was filed on July 19. 2000. praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued to quash the impugned order dated July 2, 2000 and a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued, directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid order.
(2.) A copy of the grounds of detention has been filed along with writ petition. The ground of detention mentions about one criminal case in which the petitioner was involved. It is alleged that on May 20, 2000, the petitioner along with his companions went to the shop of Ready-made Garments of Dinesh Chandra Gupta in Mohalla Gola Bazar, Kasba Nawabganj and took 9 sets of cloths from there. When Dinesh Chandra Gupta demanded price, the petitioner hurled abuse and took out country made pistol, looted the cash kept in the box and beat Dinesh Kumar Gupta. He also threatened the witnesses of dire consequences showing them country made pistol. That while making good their escape, the companions of the petitioner snatched Rs. 1,200 as Goonda tax from Sushll Kumar Gupta. The case was registered at Crime No. 88 of 2000 under Section 394. I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) of U. P. Gangsters Act and Anti Social Prevention Act at Police Station, Nawabganj, district Gonda.
(3.) It may be mentioned here that the writ petition was filed on July 19, 2000, even before the detention order had been executed or grounds of detention were served upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Judgments of Additional Secretary to the Government of India and others v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and another, 1992 SCC (Cri) 301 and N. K. Bapna v. Union of India and others. (1992) 3 SCC 512. In the case of Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia (supra) the matter has exhaustively been dealt with and Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that ; "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.";