G. T. NANAVATI, N. B. PATEL, J. ( 1 ) THE Government of Gujarat on being satisfied with respect to Shri Mohmed Akhatarhussain Kadar Bhatti a Pakistani national that with a view to making arrangements for his expulsion from India it was necessary to pass an order of detention made that order on 1-8-1989 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 3 (1) (b) of the National Security Act. Than order of detention is challenged be the detenu himself in this petition. ( 2 ) THE grounds on which the detention order has been passed are as under: (1) You are a Pak national. You are involved in smuggling activities. A seizable quantity of gold was seized from you by the customs authorities. At present you do not hold any valid documents to stay in India legitimately. (2) The following penalties have been imposed on you under Customs Act 1962 and Gold Control Act 1968 (A) A penalty of Rs. 25 0 0 (Rs. 25 lakhs) has been imposed vide Order of Customs Collector No. 31-Collector-85 dt. 1 under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act 1962 (B) A penalty of 25 0 0 (Rs. 25 lakhs) has been imposed by Customs Collector vide his Order No. 31-Collector-85 dt. 1 under Sec. 114 of the Customs Act 1962 (C) A penalty of Rs. 25 0 0 (Rs. 25 lakhs) has been imposed on you vide Collector of Customs Order No 31-Collector-85 dt. 1-7-1985 under Sec. 74 of Gold Control Act 1968 thus in total a penalty of Ks. 75 0 0 (Rs. 75 lakhs) has been imposed on you. This has not been paid yet. (3) For the Assessments Years 1982-83and 1983-84 an amount of Rs. 33 58 17 993 and Rs. 1 65 64 150 respectively is due from you under Income Tax Act (total Rs. 35 crores 23 lakhs 82 thousand 183 Similarly penalty proceedings for the year 1982 1983 and 1984-85 are still pending. (4) At present you are undergoing imprisonment under Criminal Case No. 1674 of 1982 and Case No. 129 of 1986 which is likely to be over soon. However considering your activity fines and pending penalty proceedings mentioned above it is necessary to regulate your presence in India and to make immediate arrangements for your compulsory expulsion after completion of various legal processes mentioned above. However considering your activity fines and pending penalty proceedings mentioned above it is necessary to regulate your presence in India and to make immediate arrangements for your compulsory expulsion after completion of various legal processes mentioned above. ( 3 ) WHAT is urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that whereas in the order of detention it is stated that the Government of Gujarat was satisfied that with a view to making arrangements for his expulsion from India it was necessary to pass an order of detention in the grounds of detention it is stated that the Government was satisfied regarding necessity for passing the said order in order to regulate his presence in India and to make a immediate arrangement for his compulsory expulsion after completing the various legal procee- sses mentioned in the grounds. He submitted that this shows complete non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and therefore the order of detention deserves to be quashed. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate this contention it will be necessary to refer to the relevant part of Sec. 3 of the Act which reads as under:3 Power to make orders detaining certain persons: (1) The Central Government or the State Government may : (a) If satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India the relations of India with foreign powers or the Security of India; or (b) if satisfied with respect to any foreigner that with a view to regulating his continued presence in India or with a view to making arrangements for his expulsion from India. It is necessary so to do make an order directing that such person be detained (2) xx xx (3) xx xx (4) xx xx (5) xx xx this Section confers powers on the Central Government and the State Governments to make an order of detention in respect of any foreigner if satisfied about his being engaged in the prejudicial activity contem- plated by clause (a) or clause (b) thereof. Clause (b) provides for two situation in which the appropriate Government can make an order of detention (i) where it has become necessary to take action against a foreigner with a view to regulate his continued presence in India and (ii) where it has become necessary to take action with a view to make arrangements for his expulsion from India. In this case the detention order has been made with a view to making arrangements for the petitioners expulsion from India. As the power has been exercised by the detaining authority for that purpose amount that would mean that the detention order has not been made with a view to regulate his continued presence in India. As the detention order has been made with the definite purpose of making arrangements for the petitioners expulsion from India it is not capable of being read as an order for regulating his continued presence in India. ( 5 ) IN this context it will have to be considered whether the satisfaction of the detaining authority that it was necessary to make the order of detention with a view to making arrangements for his expulsion from India can be said to be genuine and whether the grounds justify making of the detention order. In paragraph 1 of the grounds it is stated that the petitioner is a Pakistani national who is involved in smuggling activities and whose stay in India was without any valid documents. Paragraph 2 of the grounds refer to various penalties which have been imposed upon the petitioner and the fact that the same have not been paid by him. Paragraph 3 refers to the fact that Rs. 35 23 82 183 are due from the petitioner under the Income Tax Act and that penalty proceedings for the years 1982-83 1983 and 1984-85 are pending. In paragraph 4 it is stated that the petitioner is undergoing imprisonment imposed upon him in a criminal case and that it is likely to be over. After referring to all these facts it is then stated in the said paragraph that considering his activity fines imposed and Pendency of penalty proceedings it was found necessary to regulate his presence in India and to make immediate arrangements for his compulsory expulsion after completion of the said legal processes. It is difficult to appreciate how grounds Nos. After referring to all these facts it is then stated in the said paragraph that considering his activity fines imposed and Pendency of penalty proceedings it was found necessary to regulate his presence in India and to make immediate arrangements for his compulsory expulsion after completion of the said legal processes. It is difficult to appreciate how grounds Nos. 2 sad 3 can be said to be relevant for the purpose of making an order of detention on the ground that it was necessary for making arrangements for the petitioners expulsion from India. Far from the necessity of sending the petitioner out of India those grounds suggest the necessity of regulating his presence in India. That appears to be the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority himself as he his stated in paragraph 4 that it is necessary to regulate your presence in India and to make immediate arrangements for your compulsory expulsion after completion of various legal processes mentioned above. The detaining authority thus was satisfied that his presence in India was necessary for completing the said legal processed. As the detaining authority himself has stated in paragraph 4 of the grounds the petitioners extension from India was to be resorted to only after completion of the aforesaid legal processes. Though ground No. 1 can be said to be relevant for making an order of detention on the ground that it is necessary to do so with a view to making arrangements for the petiti- oners expulsion from India the satisfaction which was arrived at by the detaining authority was not that his immediate expulsion was found necessary. On the contrary even after considering those grounds the satisfaction which he arrived at was that his expulsion from India was to be exerted to only after completion of the said legal processes. In other words the detaining authority had arrived at the satisfaction that his presence in India was necessary till the Income Tax dues and penalties are recovered from him and the pending proceedings are completed. Though in the grounds we find the satisfaction to the effect that he has also found it necessary to regulate the petitioners presence in India the order of detention has not been made for that purpose. As stated above the order of detention has been made with a view to making arrangements for the petitioners expulsion from India. Though in the grounds we find the satisfaction to the effect that he has also found it necessary to regulate the petitioners presence in India the order of detention has not been made for that purpose. As stated above the order of detention has been made with a view to making arrangements for the petitioners expulsion from India. The grounds clearly indicate that the petitioners expulsion was to be resorted only after completion of the said legal processes. There is noting on record to show that the said legal processes were to be over soon. On the contrary it was submitted before us that it may take a long time before the dues are recovered from the petitioner and the pending proceedings are over. Though the petitioner was in Jail at the time when the order of detention was made it was submitted that his sentence would become over soon and he will not thereafter be available for the purposes for which his presence would be required in India. In fact in paragraph 28 of the affidavit in reply it is further stated that the order of detention was passed with a view to regulate his presence till all legal proceedings for recovery of fine etc. Are completed and than for his explosion. It would therefore mean that though the order of detention has been made with a view to making arrangements for his expulsion from India that was not really the purpose for which the said order has passed. It is well settled that a drastic remedy like preventive detention can be resorted to when immediate action is required to be taken. An order for preventive detention cannot be passed for some eventuality which is likely to happen after considerable length of time. In this case it was not certain and there was no material before the detaining authority to indicate when the Income Tax authorities and other authorities would be able to recover the dues from the petitioner and when the proceedings pending against him would be over and yet the detaining authority passed an order of detention against him. ( 6 ) FOR those reasons we cannot accept the contention of the learned Advocate for the respondents that the satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding necessity for the purpose stated in the order should be regarded as sufficient and genuine. ( 6 ) FOR those reasons we cannot accept the contention of the learned Advocate for the respondents that the satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding necessity for the purpose stated in the order should be regarded as sufficient and genuine. On the contrary it will have to be held that the satisfaction of the detaining authority as reflected in the order of detention cannot be regarded as genuine. So also it will have to he held that the grounds do not justify making of the detention order with a view to making accordances for the petitioners explosion from India. Thus the order also appears to have been made without proper application of mind. ( 7 ) IN the result this petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed and the petitioner is ordered in be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in Jail in collection with some other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (Rest of the Judgment in not material for the Reports.) (KMV) Rule made absolute. .