Judgment L. K. Homechaudhari J. 1. Heard Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. P. Jaiswal, Additional Standing Counsel for the respondent Union of India. 2. The petitioner has approached (his Court in this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of detention dated 23-3-1994 passed by Respondent No.2 against him in exercise of power conferred under Sec.3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to at the Act) before execution of the order of detention. 3. The Petitioners case it that he was arrested in connection with N D. Case No.9 of 1993 registered under Sec.8 and 20 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 and the petitioner was enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 30-9-93. But to frustrate the liberty granted to the petitioner by enlarging him on bail, respondent No.2 has passed order of detention on 23-4-94 in the exercise power under Sec.3 (1) of the Act. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court impuging the said order before execution of order of detention, According to the petitioner there is no material before the detaining authority to derive the subjective satisfaction for the exercise of power under Sec.3 (1) of the Act. The order has been passed arbitrarily for a wrong purpose. 4. The respondents in their counter, on the other hand, have contended that there are sufficient materials before the detaining authority to derive subjective satisfaction that with a view to prventing the petitioner from engaging in illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance it is necessary to detain him in exercice of power under Sec.3 (1) of the Act, the order of detention could not be executed because the petitioner was absconding. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of detention was passed arbitrarily for wrong purpose against the petitioner to frustrate the liberty granted to him, by this Court by engarging him on bail. Besides order of detention was passed on 23-3-94 and although the petitioner has all along been available having attending the Court in connection with the N. D. Case No.9 of 1993 regularly, the order of detention has not been executed for a long time. Besides order of detention was passed on 23-3-94 and although the petitioner has all along been available having attending the Court in connection with the N. D. Case No.9 of 1993 regularly, the order of detention has not been executed for a long time. The nordinate delay in execution of the order detention has vitiated the impugned order of detention. As such it is a fit case where this court may exercise discretionary power of judicial review at the pre-arrest stage. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the order of detention has been passed after depriving subjective satisfaction from the materials before the detaining authority that with a view to preventing the petitioner from engaging in illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs and psycbotropic Substances, it is necessary to detain him. The petitioner having been absconding, the order of detention could not be executed. Whether there is delay and laches in execution of the order of detention and or whether there are materials to derive subjective satisfaction Court can be considered only after the order of detention is executed and no can is made out for exercise of power of Judicial review at the pre-arrest stage. 7. The power of judicial review under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India against the order of detention before execution thereof can be exercised only in exceptional cases as been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Additional Secretary to the Government of India and others V/s. Smt. Alka subhas Gadia and another 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 496 The Supreme Court in the said case has held that while Courts power of review under Article 226 or 32 is untrammelled but being guided by self-imposed restriction it generally defers its power of review till arrest of the proposed detenue and exercises its discritionary power at pre-arrest stage only in exceptional cases limited grounds, such as. where the courts are prima facie satisfied (1) that the impugned order is not passed under the Act under which if is purported to have been, (ii) that it is sought to be executed against a wcong person, (iii)that it is passed for a wrong purposes, (iv) that it is passed on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds, (v) that the authority which passed it had no authority to do so. 8. 8. Upon hearing the counsels for the petitioner and the respondents and perusal of the averments made in the petition and in the affidavit-in opposition we do not consider it a fit case to exercise our discretionary power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the pre-arrest stage. 9. The petition is, therefore, rejected. 10. The interim order passed on 13-1-1995 and the subsequent order dated 20-2-1995 stand vacated. Petition rejected.