JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed for quashing the FIR No. 11 dated February 8, 1991. Police Station Pugal (Bikaner) and for directing the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith. 2. In short, it has been averred in the writ petition that the petitioner is a Sub-Organiser of Fearless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd in the village Awan Post Ahamad Dandi District Firozpur, the S.H.O. Pugal arrested him along with four other young sikh persons under Section 3, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short 'the Act'), FIR No. 11 dated February 8, 1991 was registered at the Police Station, Pugal (Bikaner), the police recovered several articles during the investigation, no offence under the Act is made out from the said FIR, Petitioner's detention is illegal and he deserves to be released forthwith. 3. In reply, it has been admitted that the petitioner has been arrested, the said FIR has been registered against him and others and on search of the petitioner and his colleagues various articles were recovered. It has further been averred that the petitioner and others were coming from Pakistan, the articles recovered from them clearly suggest that they are extri-mists, they went to Pakistan to purchase arms, they were returning therefrom without any pass-port or authority and Rs. 36,000/- were also recovered from their possession. It has also been averred that the petitioner and others have been arrested in a criminal case, their arrest and detention are not illegal or without jurisdiction and the petitioner has efficacious and alternate remedy under the Act. Photostat copies of the challan and its enclosures have been filed. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said FIR does not make out any offence and as such the detention of the petitioner is illegal and without authority. 5. In reply, it has been contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner has been arrested under the Act, a challan has been filed against him and others and as such his detention is not illegal. 6. It is neither necessary nor expedient to decide whether the said FIR makes out any offence under the Act or not against the petitioner as it may prejudice the case of either party during the trial in the case pending before the Terrorist Court. 6. It is neither necessary nor expedient to decide whether the said FIR makes out any offence under the Act or not against the petitioner as it may prejudice the case of either party during the trial in the case pending before the Terrorist Court. Suffice to observe here that the order of the Terrorist Court for the detention of the petitioner in jail does not appear to be without jurisdiction or wholly illegal. The petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy under the Act. 7. It has been observed in B.R. Rao v. State of Orissa, AIR 1971 SC 2197 at page 2199 para 5 (end), as follows: "Such a writ is not granted where a person is committed to jail custody by a competent court by an order which prima facie does not appear to be without jurisdiction or wholly illegal and we are not satisfied that the present is such a case". This has been followed in Kanu Sanyal v. State of Darjeeling, AIR 1974 SC 510 . Thus there is no force in the writ petition. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ dismissed. *******