1 2555.11-wp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2555 OF 2011 Vijay Kumar Gupta. ... Petitioner. V/s. Mr.K.Subramanayam and others. ... Respondents. S.N.Kantawala with Sanjay Agarwal with Yogesh Rohira for the petitioner. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P. for the respondent-State. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED : 5th September 2011. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Learned A.P.P. has opposed this petition on the ground that the reliefs claimed by the petitioner are premature and is an attempt to preempt the detaining authority from considering the recommendations submitted before it in respect of the petitioner herein. 3. Counsel for the petitioner, however, placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex in the case of Rekha v. State of Tamil 2 2555.11-wp Nadu, (2011) 5 SCC 244 and exposition in Pawan Bhartiya v. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 479 to contend that the fact situation in the present case is similar to one referred to by the Apex Court which had occasion to observe that in such a situation the question of resorting to detention does not arise. The argument though attractive at the first blush deserves to be rejected. In both the cases referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detaining authority had already passed the order of detention against the concerned detainee. The validity of the detention was put in issue. It is one thing to say that the petitioner apprehends arrest pursuant to the detention order already passed and approaches the Court at pre-execution stage. But the grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is at the stage where the detaining authority is yet to pass an order. It is only at the stage of consideration of proposal. 4. The counsel for the petitioner relying on paragraph 3.2 of the affidavit filed by the respondent before the Supreme Court would contend that it is now a mere formality that the detaining authority would pass detention order against the petitioner. In the first place, it is complete misreading of the contents of the said paragraph. What has been mentioned is that the detaining authority, if warranted, upon its subjective satisfaction, issue the detention order. There is no indication at all that the detaining authority has made up its mind to issue detention order against the petitioner. 3. According to the petitioner, in view of the observations made by the Settlement Commission and the conditions imposed in the order passed by the Settlement Commission, the propensity of the 3 2555.11-wp petitioner to indulge in similar activities in future has gone. This argument is buttressed on the basis of the exposition in Pawan Bhartiya case (supra). However, that is a matter within the domain of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner was at pains to persuade us to atleast direct the detaining authority to consider the representation made by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, by way of representation the petitioner has only highlighted the legal position which is binding on the detaining authority. In the first place, this is not the stage where the petitioner is entitled to make representation to the detaining authority. The petitioner will have right to make representation to the detaining authority or the appropriate Government as per the provisions of the Act consequent to the passing of the detention order. Besides, it goes without saying that the detaining authority while recording its subjective satisfaction would take into account the settled legal position. Suffice it to observe that it is not possible to countenance the challenge to the process of consideration of proposal by the detaining authority. That by no stretch of imagination can be said to be wrongful. 6. In view of the above, we are in agreement with the argument of learned A.P.P. that the Court should be loath to entertain the reliefs claimed in this petition. Petition is disposed of accordingly. ( P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)