515 Crl WePeNoe 242 of2003 08MI lll IN THE I1IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl WP No 242 of2003 OceM DateofDecisionl April2 2009 ShankerLal Goyal Petitioner 1 Vs 0 Union ofIndia and another 0 I e Respondents 9 I CORAM I40NBLE MR JUSTICE MMS BEDI Z rL Presentl M Vikram Chaudhri Advocate for thepctitioners I cS MrlOD Sharma Advocate for the UOI C0 MrRattan Brar AAG Haryana 7 Z l Om l MeMeSeBEDI J Petitioner has filed this petitionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CiPC for quashingof 1 detentionorder annexure Ta7 dated299001 passedby Joint Secretaryof the Governmentof India New Delhi under Section 3 619of the Conservation 0f ForeignExchangeand Preventioll of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 for short the COFEPOSA Illc againstthe son ofthe petitioner . uma 2012.09.28 13: 02 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 516 Crl WP No 242 of2003 OSLMl 121 namelyAshok Goyaldirecting that he be keptin custodyin Central Jail Tihar New Delhi lt is claimed that the petitionersson is a resident of Haryana In order to establishthat petitioners SOn 1S resident of Haryana his Pennanent Account Number issued by Commissioner of lncome Tax Rohtak and his account statement in Canara Bank Hissar have beenplaced on record as annexures Pel and P2 The detentionorder annexure P7 has 1 beenpassedby the Joint Secretary to the Govt of India under C Section3 1ofthe COFEPOSA Act in respectto Ashok Kumar Goyalwith 0 C0 a view to preventhim from slnugglinggoodsin future The grounds of I 0 detentionhavebeen attachedas annexure 18 which run into 80 pages The I details of the grounds are not necessaryfor the decision of this case but in Z briefthe allegations are to the effect that an information was receivedby the DirectorateofRevenue 6DR19New Delhi in October 1999that 1 r two containers IMPU0008507 and IMPU0011162 vide Bills of lading olj 1I1 tlo n NolMP028 and IMP 031 of Calcium Stearateexportedto Mls Mangali 7 Impacts Limited have not been clearedby thebuyerat Dubai and that these Z L consignmentshavebeen auctionedby the Port atDuba Itwas Qe lrther inforined that these goodsalongwith two more container loads of some other items were sold 111auction for a total amount of Dirham 6000 and that the goodswere not Calcium Stearate but some other cheap material Based on this information further enquirieswere made in the inatter which revealed that onc Shudhir Goyal is a Director of Mls Limited and is also proprietor ofanother Onn byname Mls . uma 2012.09.28 13: 02 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 517 Crl WeP No 242 of2003 OSMI 131 6v A JK Impery Enquiries furtherrevealedthatAshok Kumar Goyalson ofthe p6titioner who is brotherof Shudhir Goyalin India was activelyinvolved fraudulent exportsmade by Mls K Impcx Mls MangaliImpOc2 lll LlinitedMls Vikas Trading and Mls Dadri InorganicPvt Ltd by the goodsas Calcium Stearate which were found to be Calcium Carbonate quotedwith small amount of fattyacids 1 Siinilarlyin respectof exportof goodsdeclared as MagnesiteChrome Magnesia RammingMass the same were also found to be misdeclaredand 0 CA0 conOrmedby test reportsof RL at tlle time of re4estingof sainples I 0 Son of the petitionerAshok Kumar Goyalwas for the 2 I over valuation of the export resulting in fraudulentavailment Z oflDutyEntitlement Pass Book Scheme OlereinaRer refened to as DEPB m SchemelCredits of Rs5 crores 6approxi inately9as conOrmed by the I nrket enquiryand the details of the bills of entry flled at Dubai which 08 rn clearlyshow that goodswere declared at Dubai at values which were 7 very low visevis the values dcclared at the time of their Z exportsto Mls Fairdeal Chemicals SharjahUllE which were owned and controlled by the sons ofthe He was also for setting up of Mls Vikas Trading Mls Rahul Traders Mls RS Intemational for doingfraudulentexportof goods The relnittance5 that were received from his Orm MJs Fairdeal BuildingCheinicals Sharjah111 thqaccounts of exportflrms were transferrcdto the accounts of suppliers and were withdrawn in casl The transactionsin accounts of . uma 2012.09.28 13: 02 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 518 Crl W0P0No 242 of2003 08MI 141 2er1 Mls Mangali Impex Ltd Mls K Impex Mls Vikas Trading Mls Amit Impexand Mls Rahul Traders revealed that these accounts were beingmanaged byAshok Goyalsbrother SudhirGoyaland hisassociateemployeesonlyOom bank accounts ofthe suppliers The DetainingAuthorityafter consideration of the material placed before it relied upon it and came to itssubjective satisfactionthatthe actlVlties of the son of the petitioner 1 Ashok Kumar Goyal amount to as defined in Section 2 6399ofthe Customs Act 1962 and as 0 0 adopted in the COFEPOSA Act 1974 vla Section2 e9thereof since the I C5 acts and omissions of Ashok Kumar Goyalhave rendered the goods I nvolvcd liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the CustomsAct 1962 Z tead intermaliawith Rules 11 I 14 of theForeignTrade Rules 1963and Section 11 of the ForeignTrade and Trade9Act I 192 The detainingauthority its satisfactionthat Ashok Kumar 08 Goyalneeds to be detainedunderCOFEPOSA Act 1974 Sh rn 7 Ashok Goyal had been avoidingservice of the detention order and the Z 1 gtounds of detention on him deliberatelydespitethe fact that action under rv Section76ll and Section7 0116a9ofthe COFEPOSA Act 1974has been takenagainsthim on 28122001 and53002 respectively The petitioner had filed this petitionbefore this MighCourt for quashing of detention order dated291 12001 at stage This Court had on 113003 relyingupon Addl Secretaryto Govte of India antl others Vs Smt Alka Subhash Gadia and another aliowed the . uma 2012.09.28 13: 02 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 519 Crle 147PNo 242 of2003 08MI 151 1 petitiOnon the groundthat more than one and half years had elapsed betweenthe order ofdetention andthe filingofthe petitionwithout the same havingbeen executed as such the petitionwas allowed directingthe Government to pass a fresh order but the said order was set aside by the Honble SupremeCourt on 1732004 in SLP CrlI Petition N03848 of 2003 The Apex Court vide judgmentdated 1732004 has set aside the ordcrdatcd 1132003 passedby this Court and the matter was remittedto the High Court for disposalafresh in accordancewith law after giving 0 0 to Union of India to effectivelyopposethe petitionand suppon I C5 thedetdntionorder Petitioner haschallenged the detentionorder annexure I P7 at stageinteralia on thefollowinggrounds Z i That the order ofdetention passedon 291 12001 hasnot Ir been eecuted so far In view of judgmentof TeAe I Abdul Rehman Vse State of KeraIa and ors AIR 1990 c6 OO SC 225 when there is unsatisfactory and wmo 1 deiaybetweenthe dateof order of detentionand the date Z of securingthe arrest of detenue there is considerable Qm 1J doubt on thegenuineness ofthe subjective satisfactionof the detainingauthorityleadingto a legitimate inference that the detainingauthority was not reallyand genuinely satisfied as regardsthe necessityfor detainingthe detenuewith a view to preventhim from actlngln a prejudicial manner The said judgment had . uma 2012.09.28 13: 02 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document r 520 Crl WP No 242 of2003 082M1 161 1 been reiteratedby the Apex Court in RajinderArora VseUeOeIe2006 621RCR 6Crl975 ii9 There does not exist any proximatetemporal nexus betweentheprejudicial activityand detentionorder 1 iii The DutyEntitlement Pass Book Schemefonnulated by the Governmenthas inbuilt mechanismcontaining entire 1 process The scheme providesan opportunityto the 0 exporterto enable hiln to justi67correctnessof PMV 0 0 0Present Market Value lt is provided under the Scheme I C5 that PMV can only be reduced or rejectedby adopting I the process prescribedtherein Section 3 l 9 of the Z COFEPOSA Act1974 cannot be invoked unless and 2 until the Government 1S satisfied that detention order is I requiredto be passedto preventa person from acting111 08 11 any manner prejudicial to the conservation or 7 of foreignexchange or with a view to Z 1 prevent him from smuggling goodsunder Section 13 Cl ofthe Act Smuggling hasthe same meaning as in Olause 6391of Section 2 ofe Customs Act1962 Though penal action has been proposedfor an improper declarationunder DEPB 110 coerclve action has bcendescribedfor takingaction in this regard . uma 2012.09.28 13: 02 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 521 Crl WP Noe242 of2003 O8tMl 171 V1 ivl The goodsexportedby Ashok Goyalis prohibited under Section 2 631of the Customs Act and the exportmade doesnot attract Section 113 of the Customs Act in any manner The goodsexportedare neither dutiable nor prohibited as such detention order passed 1S illega Detention order passedqua Sudhir Goyalhas been 1 by Delhi High Court vide Judglnentdated 212003 Similar allegations lll detention orders 0 0 passedagainstAnil Jindal have been quashedin a I t5 CrWP byDelhi HighCourt The AdvisoryBoard had I advised Central Govemment to revoke the detention Z ordersagainstCP Guptaand K Batra vide orders 2 rL dated1432002 and 53 2002 and the Central Govt has I revokedthe detentionorders Certain additionalgrounds 08 Cn were also takenbyfilinga Misc application 7 v Vital documentssuch as advise meino dated March 23 Z 1 2001 issued by Joint Director GenerallForeignTrade 1 New Delhi was not placedbeforethedetaining authority Vide order datedFebruary12 2001 an alert circular had been issued by the Ministryof Finance againstMJs K ImpexMls MangaliImpexLimited and Mls Vikas Trading Thereafterthe Director General of ForeignTrade also issued advicc meino dated March . uma 2012.09.28 13: 02 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 522 Crle WePeNo 242 of2003 08M1 181 17 J 23 2001 to all the licencee Branchesfor not allowingthe said firms and persons to avail of any categoryor any other beneflt under the EXIN policy It was also directed that JEC Section shall not lSsue any IECs to the Directorsl partnersmentionedtherein In these circumstances the service of detention order againstson of the petitioner is unwarrantedand clearly C amountsto punitive and not preventive detention Copy 0 0 of the alert circular and the advice tnemo have been I C5 placedon record as annexures I12 and P13 The Delhi I HighCourt vide order datedFebruary21 2003 annexure Z P14 had quashedthe detentionorders qua Sudhir Goyal brother of the petitionerReliance has been placedon I judgment of Supreme Court in DeepakBajaj Vs State 08 m of Maharashtra 2008 4I RCR Crlo 961 in which 7 order of detentionwas set aside at preIetention stageon Z the groundthat the relevant material was not brought to 1J the notice of the authoritypassingthe detention order Ofp The Gadias case supralhad beenextended by the Supreme Court holdingthat the parameterslaid down in Alka Gadias case are not exhaustivebut are illustrative . uma 2012.09.28 13: 02 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 523 CrIe WP No 242 of2003 OSLMI 191 Ll vil A certified copy ofthe order dated February3 2006 passedby the SpecialJudgeNew Delhi accepting the closure report submitted by CBI ln FIR N RCISIGO001E0001 dated March 11 2001 has been piaced on record as annexure P4 In replyfiled to the application for placingon record annexure P4 it has 1 been submittedthat the reportgivenby CBI is only an investigation reportof an agency and that it cannot be 0 0 said that case of fraud against son of the petitionerhas I C5 becn dropped The investigationmade by Customs I and those made by CBI are separateAs Z such it cannot be said that the very basis of issuingthe m C4 detentionorder againstthe son ofthe petitionerhas been I rejectedMoreover the CBI report1S ln respectof only 08 r OllC of the goodsie Calcium Stearate Mls Vikas 7 Trading had exported Slx conslgnmentsto Z 4 lvtls Fairdeal BuildingsChemicals Sharjahthe flnn tl J owned by the son of the petitionerdeclaringoodsas Magnesa Ramming Massl Magnesite Chrome MagnesiaRammingMass and declaringvalue as Rs19673401 under claim for the benefit of Duty ExemptionPass Book 6DEPBI SimilarlyMls Dadri lnorganics Pvt Ltd Bhiwani firm . uma 2012.09.28 13: 02 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 524 Crl WPe No 242 of2003 W1 1101 I3 exported8 to Mls Fairdeal Building Chemicals Sharjahand declaringgoodsas Magnesite Chrome MagnesiaRammingMass and declaringthe value as Rs99033801 under claim for DEPB scheme As per norms publishedby DGFT MagnesiteChrome Magnesiashouid contain chroinium oxide to the extent 1 of 40Io minimum whereasthe sampleson testingwere composedof Oxide Iron Oxide and 0 0 siliceous and with small amount ofcalcium oxide Apart I C5 from misdeclaration of the export goods conSimed I from the test reportsthe goodswere highlyovermvalued Z which facts were conSrmed om overseas enquirywhich revealedthat the value declaringin the shippingbills lll I India were more than 20 times the value declaredin the 08 Qo bill of entries flled at destination in Duba The 7 overvaluation of export goodswas contravention of Z 1 provisions of ForeignExchangeRegulation Act 1973 Om and also in contraventionofForeignTrade andRegulation9 Act 1992 Such an activityamountedto smuggling I have heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for Union of lndia The detention order annexure P7 and the groundsof detentionannexure P8 runningInto 80 pagesbrieflycontalll the allegations . uma 2012.09.28 13: 02 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 525 Crle WeP No 242 of2003 OSMI Illl constitutinggroundfor preventivedetention are that the petitioners son interalia indulgedin misdeclaration and overlaluation of the goods111 order to claim the bene6t of Duty Passbook Schemeas such the dctention order was necessaryto preventhim from indulgingin smuggling 8ctlvltles Preventive detention is a form of precautionary State action 1 intended to preVenta person 80m indulging in a conduct ensure to the C Ie societyor thesecurity ofthe Stateor publicorder It has beenrecognized as 0 Co 4 Il a necessaryevil and is toleratedin a 8ee societyin the largerinterestofthe I C5 securityofthe Stateand maintenanceofpublicorder Since drasticpowers I hav6 been givento the Stateto detain a person without trial for securityof Z the State or for maintcnanceof publicorder the Supreme Court and various 2 High Courts as guardianof Constitution have zealously to I presereand protectthe libertyof a citizen There are a numberof instanceS2 08 0 1 tl r wherein a clash betweenindividual libertyand interestofthe security ofthe 11 m Stateor publicorder the ibertyof the individual has beenmadeto giveway Z to the lrger interest of nation Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act confers 0 powerOO thc Central Govemment StateGovemment and their ofOcers lf specifically to inake an order for detention against a person engagedm certain prejudicial activities specifiedin that Section In our judicialhistorytherehavc been a numberof cases involvingthechallenges to the ordersof detentionbcfore and a8er execution of the detentionorders The Apex Court in Union of India Vse Amrit Lal Manchanda 200493 . uma 2012.09.28 13: 02 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 526 2rl WP No 242 of2003 O82MI 1121 j r SCC 75 has a word of caution that cases involvingchallenges to ordersof detention before and after execution of the order stand on differentfootings Courts should not placereliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factualsituationtlts in with the fact situationofthe decision of which relianceis placedSo far as the law pertaining to judicial revlew at predctention stageis concerned the same has been settledbythe tzAulolS CC ApOxCourt in Additional Secretaryto 0 Alka Subhash Gadia and another 1992Suppl619 SCC 496 In the above 0 stated pertaining to the exerciseofjudicialreview at pre I C5 execlltion stageit was held that the Courts under Articles 226 and 32 ofthe I Constitution of India can interfereat stagewith the detention Z orderIonlyif theyare satisfied that 6i the impugned order 1S not passed A C undel the Act under which it is purpoitedto have been passed6ii lt 1S I sought to be executedagainst a wrong person 6iii911lS passedfor a wrong c6 m purpos6iv9it is passed on vague extraneous and vexatiousgroundsor 6v9 e7 Z the which passedit had no authorityto do so In 1 Qm of Apex Court in Administration of NCT Delhi Vs Prem 1 Singh1995Suppl641SCC 252 it was held that the abovesaidSve grounds are the only pertnissiblegroundson which at prdetentionstag the detentionorder can be quashedThe positionwas reiteratedin SayedTaher 1 Bawama Vs Joint Sccretao200018 SCC 630 In Subhash Muljimal 9 Gandhi Vse LJliminglianaand another JT 199L59SC 358 theSupreme Court had clarified that other contingencies for quashingthe detentionorder . uma 2012.09.28 13: 02 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 527 Crl WeP Noe242 of2003 08MJ 1131 6 r at predetentionstageif to be consideredbythe Courts must be of the same speciesas containedin the flve groundsiaid down in Alka Subhash Gadias case supra In State of Maharashtra Vse Bhaurao Puojabrao Gawande AIR 2008 SC 1705 the Division Bench ofth6 Apex Court followingthe saidjudgment hasheld that interferenceby the Coun of law at stagemust be an exception rather than a rule and such a an exerclse can be undertakenby writ Court with extremecare caution and 0 The ApexCourt in Union of India Vs Atam Paraksh and 0 another 2009 19RCR 6Crl 264 while dealingwith a matter in which the I C5 Punjab and HaryanaHighCourt had allowed a writ petitionled by Atam I Parkashquashed the dctention order ofthe year 1993at stage Z and Union of India was restrainedfrom enforcing the detentionorder on the groundthat a periodofdetention had expiredthe ApexCoun had set aside I the order of the High Court holdingthat the order was unsustainable 08 0 howevet a direction was givento the Governmentto take a decision within 7 a periodof two months as to whether it would bedesirable to take the tl respondents back to custody l Whether the circumstances mentioned in Alka Subhash Gadias tase supra9were exhaustive or merelyillustrative came up for considerationbefore Honble Supreme Court in RajinderArora Vs Union of India and others 2006 64 SCC 796 TA Abdul Rehman Vse State of Kerala AIR 1990 SC 225 and DeepakBajaj Vse State of Maharashtra and another 2008 4 RCR 6Crl 961 It was held in RajinderArora . uma 2012.09.28 13: 02 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 528 3rl WP No 242 of2003 6082M1 1141 TA Abdul Rehman and DeepakBajajs case supra9that the Ove inStances mentionedin Alka Subhash Gadias case 6supral as to thOrule that detentionorder cannot bechallenged at theptexecutionstage weremerelyillustrativeand not exhaustive There is no dispute that the iaw Iaiddown in Alka Subhash Gadias case 6supra9 still holds the fteld so far as the ftve to challenge the detentionorder at stage ooncerned The Honble SupremeCourt however in judgmentdated lS f 0 November12 2008 DeepakBajajs case osupra9 held that the five grounds 0 inentioned in Alka Subhash Gadias case was for quashing the I C5 detelltionorder at stage are not exhaustive but are only I illustrativeIn the said case the Honble Supreme Court has held that the Z detenon order had been passedon the basis of certain confessional m2 statements made before the authoritybut these confessional I statements had been retractedbeforeDIU which is the same as 08 CO authority lt was the dutyof the DR1 to have connectedthese 7 retractionsofthe alleged witnessesto thesponsoring authority as well as the Z l detainingauthorityThe confessions taken into consideratoionby the Om were r detainitig authoritywhen he passed the detentionorder It was held that had the retrctions of the personswho madetheseconfessionsalso been placed before the detaining authorityit is possible thatthe detainingauthorityinay not have passedthe impugned detention order Failure to placethe retractions of confcssions before the detainingauthoritywould vitiate the . uma 2012.09.28 13: 02 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 529 Crl WP No 242 of2003 OMl 1151 detentionorder Paras 27 and 34 ofthe DeepakBajajs case 6supraread aSfollowSl 27 Apart from the above ln our oplnlon non of the relevant materials before the DetainingAuthorityvitiates the detention order and grounds6iiil 8i 0iv9of the decision of this 1 Court in Alka Subhash Gadias case 6supraare 0 0 attractedin such a situation as held in Rajinder 0 Arora ve Union ofIndia6supra vide para 25 of I C5 the said decisionlHence even if we treat the flve I inentioned in Alka Subhash Gadias Z case supral as exhaustive the presentcase lS 2 coveredbythe 3rd and 4th ofthose five I exceptIons as held in RajinderAroras case C45 fn 0 e 0 4 10 7 34 Severalsubmissionshave been madeby Shri Soli Z 1 Sorabjee Ieamedcounsel for the petitioner but In 1 our opinionit is not necessary to go into all of them since we are inclined to allow this petition on one of these groundsnamely that the relevant lnaterial was not placedbefore the Detaining Authoritywhen he passed thedetentionorder . uma 2012.09.28 13: 02 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 530 CrlleWPe No 242 of2003 08Ml 1161 e So far as RajinderAroras case supra9is concerned in the said case the five instances mentioned in Alka Subhash Gadias case supralas to the rule that a detentionorder cannot be at stagehad beenheld to be illustrative In RajinderAroras case supra the Supreme Court took a note of threeJudgeBench decision in c4seof Naresh Kumar GoyalVs Union of lndia and others 620059 8 1 SCC 276 wherein it was observedthat an order ofdetention is not a curative or reformativeor punitiveaction but a preventive action the avowed object 0 0 of Which is to prevent the antiesocial and subversive elelnents from I C5 the welfare of the countryor the securityof the nation or from I pubictranquility or from indulgingin smuggling activities or Z from engaging in illicit trafflc in narcoticdrugsand psychotropic substances et Theobjectof detention it was observed is not to punish a I man for havingdone but to interceptbefore he does it and to 08 m prevetlt hiin from doingso In this context theSupreme Court observedthat 7 it thetefore became on thepait ofthe detainingauthority as well Z 1 as theexccuting authorityto be very vigilantandkeeptheir eyesskinnedbut Il not to turn a blind eyc in securing the detenu and executingthe detention order becauseany indifferent attitudeon the part of the detaining authority or exe6uting authoritywill defeatthe very purpose of preventive action and turn the detention order into a dead Ietter and frustrate the entire It was aiso observed that inordinate delay for which no adequate explanation is rnished would lead to the assumption that the Iive . uma 2012.09.28 13: 02 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 531 CrleWvPeNoe242 of2003 O82MI 1171 0 aridproximatelink between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detentionis snappedIn RajinderAroras case ipralit was held that the grounds number6iiil and vI ofthe decision ofthe Supreme Court in Alka Subhash Gadias case supralwere attractedas such the detention order wasquashed I havecarelly gone throughall the abovesaid of 1 the Honble SupretneCourt and I am of theopinionthat all the decisionsof Court indicate that the Sve circumstancesmentioned in Alka 0 0 Subhash Gadias case osupral are sine qua non for exercise of judicial I l5 review One 1ine of decision of Supreme Court indicate that the five I circunstancesmentionedtherein are exhaustive efer DeepakBajajs c8se9 Z but thre is another line of decisions of the Supreme Court 6referAtam 0 Parkasbs case indicate thatthe five circumstancesare illustrativeand not I exhausve Carefullyperusecheredoes not appear to be inuch conflict 08 betweeii the decisions of the Honble SupremeCourt rendered by the OO V7 Benchesof equa1strengthConjointreadingof all the cases incidatethat in Z Il cases is necessary to determinewhether for thepurposeof Il 1 quashing the detention order the matter falls in one of the five instances mentionedin Alka Gadias case and in case the circumstancesof particular case clearlyestablishthat the detention order is unconscionable illegaland thegroundof quashing the detentionorder is one of the speciesof the five parameterslaid down aforementioned it would be permissibl6 for the HighCourt to exerclse the power of judicialreview but . uma