V. B. Bansal, J. ( 1 ) DEVKI Nandan @ raju has filed this writ petition under Artical of the Constitution of India read with Section 182 of the Criminal Procedure Code with a prayer that the detention order dated 19th August, 1991 passed by Shri Mahinder Prashad, respondent No. 2 under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as the act ) be quashed and that the respondent be restrained from implementing the said detention order. ( 2 ) ON 19th August, 1991 in exercise of the powers under Section 3 (1) of the Act Shri Mahinder Prashad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India and a specially empowered officer directed that Devki Nandan @ Raju son of Shri Banwari Lal resident of A-6/8 Rana Pratap Bagh be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange and from dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has claimed that a detention order was paassed against his brother Shiv Shanker on 19th August, 1991 who had been arrested in p73 pursuance of the said order to whom the grounds of detention were served and that he obtained a copy of the grounds for issuing of the detention order against him. According to the averments made in the said grounds of detention, it has been stated that on 10th July, 1991 the officers of the Enforcement Directorate Delhi zone intercepted one three-wheeler scooter DL-IR-6227 when it was crossing the red light crossing of Malka Ganj and apprehended Dilli Prashad Sharma @ Keshav Sharma and Kamal Sharma when the scooter was driven by one Mahboob Ali. 19,500 US Dollars were recovered from the shoes worn by Dilli Prashad which were seized by the officers of the Enforcement Dirctorate. Their statement were recorded and it was revealed by them that this amount was taken by them from Devkinandan and his brother Shiv Shanker, Residential house of Shiv Shanker and Devki Nandan @ Raju was searched when Indian Currency of Rs. 2,06,750. 00 besides documents were recovered and seized after preparing a Panchnama. Devki Nandan managed to escape from the premises during the search. 2,06,750. 00 besides documents were recovered and seized after preparing a Panchnama. Devki Nandan managed to escape from the premises during the search. Statement of Shiv Shanker was recorded in terms of Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act when it was, inter alia, stated by him that he and his brother had been dealing in gold biscuits and that the amount of Rs. 2. 06. 750. 00 recovered from their house was the sale proceeds of gold biscuits and that the incriminating writing recovered from the house was in the hand of Devki Nandan, petitioner. Accordingly the order dated 19th August, 1991 was passed for detention of the petitioner. ( 4 ) PLEA of the petitioner has been that he was not present in Delhi on 10th July, 1991, the day on which the recovery is alleged to have been made from Dilli Prashad and Kamal Sharma and that the statement alleged to have also been pleaded that there has been non-application of mind and reliance has been placed on irrelevant documents. 158 ( 5 ) I have beared Shri Rohit Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sandeep Bhalla learned counsel for the respondents. I have also carefully gone through the records. ( 6 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has not been detained in pursuance of the detention order, who has been evading his arrest and till such time he is apprehended, the writ petition is not competent and prayed that on this short ground this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. This submission has been opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that since the detaining authority has placed reliance on irrelevant documents, writ petition challenging the detention order prior to its execution is maintainable. He has placed reliance upon the case: The Additional Secretary to the Government of India and others Vs. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and Anr, Judgement carefully. The Hon ble Supreme Court has specifically given the circumstances under which the detention order can be challenged at he pre-execution stage. He has placed reliance upon the case: The Additional Secretary to the Government of India and others Vs. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and Anr, Judgement carefully. The Hon ble Supreme Court has specifically given the circumstances under which the detention order can be challenged at he pre-execution stage. It would he appreciate at the stage, to quote the following: "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 facia 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 on vogue, 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 extra ordinary 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 denail to the proposed detenu, but prevents their abuse and the perversion of the law in question". A bare reading of the aforesaid para makes it abundently clear that if the petitioner can prove that the detention order has been passed on vague, exttaneous and irrelevant grounds, the same can be challenged even prior to its execution. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to point out by judgement to the contrary. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there have been other cases in which the detention orders prior to their execution had been set aside by the devision bench of this court and has placed relience on the judgement in Cri. Writ Petition No. 233 of 1991 (Om Parkash Vs. Administrator, Delhi Admn. and others) decided on 29th November, 1991 Cr. Writ Petition No. 243 of 1991 (Ajit Singh Vs. Delhi Administrator, Delhi Admnt. and others) decided on 29th November, 1991. Writ Petition No. 233 of 1991 (Om Parkash Vs. Administrator, Delhi Admn. and others) decided on 29th November, 1991 Cr. Writ Petition No. 243 of 1991 (Ajit Singh Vs. Delhi Administrator, Delhi Admnt. and others) decided on 29th November, 1991. It is, thus, clear that the detentionorder can be challenged even prior to its execution if the petitioner can show that relience has been placed on irrelevant documents also. 159 ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has been nonapplication of mind by the appropriate authority inasmuch as reliance has been placed on irrelevant documents and has referred to pages 76 to 81 of the documents which had been supplied to Shiv Shanker his brother of the petitioner and which are documents as relied upon against the petitioner as well. Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed that these are. the same documents which have been relied upon by the detaining authority in passing to detention order against the petitioner and it has been stated specifically in para 2 of the counter affidavit in reply to the application under Section 482 of the code of Criminal procedure. A persual of the aforesaid documents clearly shows that these documents comntgain accounts of electrician, plumber, carpenter besides certain accounts of stoneman, painter as also the prices of paint. Learned counsel for the respondent has specifically been asked about the relevancy of these documents for coming to the subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority for passing the. detention order. Learned counsel for the respondents was, however, unable to advance any argument to indicate the relevancy of these documents. According to the case of the respondents the petitioner was dealing in smuggled gold and was getting foreign currency and the documents aforesaid are in respect of the accounts of electricians, plumber, carpenter and painter. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in these circumstances, in my opinion, is right in his submissions that thee are irrelevant documents and reliance has been placed by the detaining authority on them. ( 8 ) THE next question for consideration is what is the effect of the detaining authority having placed reliance on irrelevant documents. It would, at this stage, be convenient to refer to the case of: Smt. Shalini Soni and others Vs. Union of India and others (1980) 4 SCC 544 where it has been observed as follows: ". . . . It would, at this stage, be convenient to refer to the case of: Smt. Shalini Soni and others Vs. Union of India and others (1980) 4 SCC 544 where it has been observed as follows: ". . . . . . . . it is an unwritten rule of the law, constitutional and administrative that whenever a decision-making function is enstrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation to apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matter only eschewing the irrelevant and the remote. Where there is further an express state of obligation to communicate not merely the decision but -the grounds on which the decision is founded, it is a necessary corollary that the grounds communicated, that is, grounds so made known, should be seen pertain to pertinent and proximate matters and should comprise all the constitutant facts and materials that went in to make up the mind of the statutory functionary and not merely the inferential conclusions. . . . . . . . " Placing reliance upon this case the detention order in case Ved Parkash Vedi Vs. Union of India and others 1991 (1) C. C. Cases 118, was quashed, since it had placed reliance upon irrelecant documents. Similarly the detention orders were quashed in cases Jagdish/mitr, Vs. Union of India and others 1990 Cri. L. J. 269, and Diwan Singh Verma Vs. Union Of india and Ors, 1988 (2) Delhi Lawyers 197. It is thus, clear that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority stands vitiated on accounts of having placed reliance on irrelevant documents on coming to the subjective satisfaction for detaining the petitioner. On this ground alone, the detention order is liable to be quashed. ( 9 ) THE petitioner had taken a number of grounds in this writ petition but the learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his to this ground alone. ( 10 ) IN view of my aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The detention order dated 19th August, 1991 for detaining the petitioner under Section 3 (1) of the Act is quashed.