S. D. PANDIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3318 of 1997 on July 2, 1997. ( 2 ) THE appellant is the original petitioner. She is the wife of one Hasmukhlal Modi against whom an action of detention was taken. It is the case of the appellant that her husband Hasmukhbhai Kantilal Modi is a partner of petrol pump in the name and style of ambica Service Station" situated at Dholka, Dist: Ahmedabad. At the said place, he is doing business of sale of petrol and diesel. It is averred in the petition that in the first week of January, 1997, Hasmukhbhai and his family members had gone to Surat as maternal uncle of Hasmukhbhai was seriously sick. The said relative expired on January 8, 1997. During the night between January 11 and 12, 1997, Civil Supply Inspector from the District Supply Office under the Collectorate of Ahmedabad visited Ambica Service station, seized certain record and sealed the petrol pump. A seizure order was passed on january 12, 1997 which is produced at Annexure "a" to the petition. It was alleged therein that meter reading disclosed that there was excess of petrol to the extent of 2978 litres; that density registers of petrol and diesel were not regularly maintained and that the density of petrol was not in accordance with the norms and standards and the difference was more than the permissible limits. A complaint was made by Hasmukhbhai vide his letter Annexure "d" to the Collector on January 15, 199 ( 3 ) A request was also made to make personal inquiry by the Collector as there was mistake in meter reading by the officer who inspected the petrol pump. A copy of the letter was also sent to Deputy general Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Ahmedabad. On February 27, 1997, the district Supply Officer passed an interim order suspending licence of Hasmukhbhai for a period of 90 days. The said order is appealable. An appeal was filed which was dismissed on April 11, 1997. A show cause notice was issued on April 10, 1997 for confiscation of goods seized. It is stated in the petition that suspension of licence is continued even today and Hasmukhbhai is unable to do business in petrol. The said order is appealable. An appeal was filed which was dismissed on April 11, 1997. A show cause notice was issued on April 10, 1997 for confiscation of goods seized. It is stated in the petition that suspension of licence is continued even today and Hasmukhbhai is unable to do business in petrol. It is stated that the petitioner came to know that her husband was ordered to be detained and since the said action was illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, and violative of fundamental rights, guaranteed by part HI of the constitution, a petition was filed. Various grounds were put forward in the petition. ( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge issued notice pursuant to which respondents appeared and two affidavits were filed by one V. S. Gadhvi, District Magistrate (respondent No. 2 herein) who is the detaining authority. In the first affidavit, it was aserted that he was satisfied on the basis of the material available on the record of the case that "with a view to preventing Hasmukhbhai Kantilal Modi from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community", it was necessary to detain him, and in bonafide exercise of power, an order of detention was passed on 1. 2. 1997 directing that Hasmukhbhai Modi be detained under the Prevention of black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). It was further stated that the said order was sent to the District Superintendent of Police, Ahmedabad (Rural) for execution and implementation. It was then stated;"however, since the detenue has been absconding, the same could not be served upon him and accordingly, the same was returned to my office. "inspite of the best efforts of police authorities, Hasmukhbhai could not be traced and the order of detention and grounds in support thereof could not be served upon him. Since the detenue had absconded or concealed himself, the detaining authority issued a proclamation on 17. 4. 1997 under Sec. 7 (a) of the Act. The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenue, has not come with clean hands and extraordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution may not be exercised in the instant case. Since the detenue had absconded or concealed himself, the detaining authority issued a proclamation on 17. 4. 1997 under Sec. 7 (a) of the Act. The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenue, has not come with clean hands and extraordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution may not be exercised in the instant case. It was further stated that if the petition would be entertained, the very purpose and object of the Act would be frustrated which would be against public interest, particularly when the detenue has not surrendered and is absconding. ( 5 ) AN additional affidavit was also filed by the detaining authority asserting that the meter reading was noted in presence of panchas and Manager of the petrol pump. On inspection, prima facie, it was found that there was difference in density of petrol. The density of petrol was measured only upto January 6, 1997. At the time of inspection, there was excess in petrol to the extent of 2978 Itrs. It was stated that partners of Ambica Petrol pump filed Regular Civil Suit No. 240 of 1997 in Court of the Civil Judge (S. D.), ahmedabad (Rural) at Ahmedabad restraining the authorities from refusing to test sample of petrol both from sealed bottle and tank in any of its registered laboratories. Alongwith the plaint, an application Exh. 5 was filed, but the same was dismissed by the learned judge by an order dated March 20, 1997. According to the deponent, it was a material fact, but it was suppressed and on the ground of concealment and/or suppression of material fact, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief under Art. 226 of the constitution. It was then stated that from the laboratory test conducted by Forensic science Laboratory, it was found that the density of petrol was not upto the standard and petrol was adulterated. On all these grounds, it was urged that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief and that too, when Hasmukhbhai was absconding and/or concealing himself. When the detenue had not accepted the order and grounds in support of such order and when the authority was compelled to take action under Sec. 7 (a) of the Act by issuing a Notification, the petition was not maintainable. ( 6 ) WE have heard Mr. P. M. Raval, learned counsel for the appellant instructed by mr. When the detenue had not accepted the order and grounds in support of such order and when the authority was compelled to take action under Sec. 7 (a) of the Act by issuing a Notification, the petition was not maintainable. ( 6 ) WE have heard Mr. P. M. Raval, learned counsel for the appellant instructed by mr. A. M. Parekh considerable length. We have also heard Mr. P. O. Desai, learned government Pleader for the respondent State. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has not committed an error of law in not entertaining the petition at pre-execution stage and that order does not require interference. ( 7 ) IT is an admitted fact that Hasmukhbhai is still not detained. It is the case of the authorities that an order of detention was passed as early as on February 1, 199. 7 and with a view to get it executed, it was sent to police authorities. Police authorities attempted to execute the order, but the detenue could not be traced. It is also undisputed that till today, hasmukhbhai is not available and is not detained. ( 8 ) IT is, no doubt, contended by Mr. Raval, that Hasmukhbbai is not avoiding service or absconding or concealing himself, but in exercise of his right to approach this Court, even at pre-execution stage, has filed the petition through his better-half and this is one of those cases in which interference of this Court is called for. The learned Single Judge has committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record in not granting relief to hasmukhbhai. In support of this submission, our attention was invited to the facts as well as to various decisions of the Honble Supreme Court. ( 9 ) SO far as factual aspect is concerned, it was stated that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order of detention could have been passed by the detaining authority. It was urged that at the time of inspection and seizure, there was 9,43,738 Itrs. of petrol in the petrol pump. But it was factually incorrect. The correct figure was 9,41,038 litres. For this submission, our attention was invited to panchnama prepared at the time when inspection was made by the officer of Civil Supplies as also to a panchnama prepared subsequently. of petrol in the petrol pump. But it was factually incorrect. The correct figure was 9,41,038 litres. For this submission, our attention was invited to panchnama prepared at the time when inspection was made by the officer of Civil Supplies as also to a panchnama prepared subsequently. It was argued that no illegality or irregularity was committed by the detenue but due to error on the part of the officers in noting correct figure, an inference was drawn that there was excess petrol. This was the basis and foundation of forming an opinion. Though such opinion is subjective in nature which may not be open to judicial scrutiny on the basis of objective facts, since such fact did not exist, subjective satisfaction was vitiated. ( 10 ) NOW, looking to the allegations of the respondents, there was excess petrol. An affidavit in reply is filed by the detaining authority wherein this fact has been mentioned. The said fact also appears from the record if one looks at an order of seizure passed on january 12, 1997 in which it was clearly stated that there was excess of petrol to the extent of 2978 Ltrs. Now, whether or not, there was a factual error and whether there was inconsistency between two panchnamas and if it was so, which panchnama should be believed and relied upon cannot, in our opinion be decided at this stage. ( 11 ) BUT there is an additional reason also. In counter affidavit and in the seizure order, it was alleged that density of petrol was not in accordance with norms and standards laid down for the said purpose. It is averred that the difference is 0. 0667 which is in excess of permissible limits (. 00030 ). It is also asserted that the sample was sent for analysis to Forensic Science Laboratory and the Laboratory confirmed that the density was not as per the norms and standards and petrol was adulterated. If it is so, in our opinion, by not entertaining the petition and not granting relief at this stage, the learned single Judge has not committed any illegality and the order does not suffer from any infirmity. ( 12 ) ON law point, strong reliance was placed on a decision of the Honble Supreme court in Additional Secretary to the Government of India and Ors. vs. Smt. Alka Subhas gadhia and Anr. , 1992 Supp. ( 12 ) ON law point, strong reliance was placed on a decision of the Honble Supreme court in Additional Secretary to the Government of India and Ors. vs. Smt. Alka Subhas gadhia and Anr. , 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 496. Particular attention was invited to the following observations; "it is not correct to say that the courts have no power to entertain grievances against any detention order prior to its execution. 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 interferred with them at the pre-execution stage are necessarily very limited in scope and number, viz. , where the courts are prima facie 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 for a wrong purpose (iv) that it is passed on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds of (v) that the authority which passed it had no authority to do so. The refusal by the courts to use their extraordinary 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 denial to the proposed detenue, but prevents their abuse and the perversion of the law in question. " ( 13 ) MR. Raval submitted that according to the Supreme Court, it is sufficient if a detenue prima facie satisfies the Court about one of such circumstances. He urged that in the present case, the order of detention was made for wrong purpose, [circumstances No. (iii) in Alka Gadhia. ] He also referred to subsequent decision in Subhash Gandhi vs. Himinghiana and Anr. 1994 (6) SCC, 14 and N. K. Bafna vs. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC, 512. Reiterating the principle laid down in Alka Gadhia, it was indicated that contingencies mentioned in Alka Gadhia or "other contingencies of same species" can be taken into account by a Court of law for entertaining a petition at pre-execution stage. ( 14 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Reiterating the principle laid down in Alka Gadhia, it was indicated that contingencies mentioned in Alka Gadhia or "other contingencies of same species" can be taken into account by a Court of law for entertaining a petition at pre-execution stage. ( 14 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Raval from the decisions of the Apex Court as also of this court, it is clear that limited grounds are available to a detenue to challenge an order of detention at pre-execution stage. Some of such grounds have been mentioned in Alka gadhia, but they are merely illustrative and not exhaustive. That legal position was clarified in subsequent decisions. According to the counsel, in the instant case, the order is passed for wrong purpose which is covered in Alka Gadhia. When there is factual error in noting figures, no drastic action of detention could have been taken by any reasonable and prudent man. So called satisfaction of the detaining authority, therefore, could be described as arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable. ( 15 ) MR. Raval further submitted that there is no provision analogous to one found in the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) (Sec. 5a), which enables a Court of law to sustain an order, when an order of detention is passed on more than one ground and one of the grounds is found to be non-existent, vague, irrelevant etc. According to Mr. Raval, even if one of the grounds is non-existent, vague, irrelevant etc. , subjective satisfaction is vitiated and the order will be held to be illegal. ( 16 ) IN our opinion, however, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in not entering into that question at this stage as the petition was premature. As observed by the Supreme Court in Alka Gadhia, as a normal rule, a petition would lie after an order is passed and the detenue surrenders to custody. The High Court should not be made an instrumentality for getting an order of detention and grounds in support of such order. In our considered view, it is not appropriate for us at this stage to speculate the grounds on which the order is passed and to hold that the order is passed on more than one ground and one of such grounds is non-existent or vague or irrelevant and on that account, subjective satisfaction of detaining authority is vitiated. In our considered view, it is not appropriate for us at this stage to speculate the grounds on which the order is passed and to hold that the order is passed on more than one ground and one of such grounds is non-existent or vague or irrelevant and on that account, subjective satisfaction of detaining authority is vitiated. As and when the order will be served upon the detenue alongwith grounds in support of such order, it is open him to challenge legality or otherwise of such order. By not entertaining the petition at pre-execution stage, the learned Single Judge has acted in accordance with well settled principles of law. ( 17 ) A similar question arose before a Division Bench of this Court in Elesh nanubhai Patel vs. C. P. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city and Ors. , (1997) 2 glr 1063. In that case, an order of detention was passed under the Gujarat Prevention of anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA ). Before the order could be executed, a petition was filed which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge in almost similar circumstances. The detenue filed Letters Patent Appeal and the Division Bench to which one of us was a party (C. K. Thakkar, J.) upheld the order passed by the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal observing that by not entertaining the petition at pre-execution stage, the Single judge had not committed any error of law. We reiterate the principle laid down in Elesh patel. ( 18 ) THERE is yet another reason for not interfering with the order passed by the learned Single Judge at this stage. As stated in affidavit-in-reply, the order was passed by detaining authority as early as on February 1, 1997. It was attempted to be served through DSP, Ahmedabad (Rural) upon the detenue, but the detenue either absconded or had concealed himself and the order could not be served. That reason also, in our opinion, sufficient for not exercising extraordinary powers under Art. 226 of the constitution. It has been so held by the Supreme Court in Alka Gadhia and Subhash gandhi. No doubt, Mr. Raval controverted the statement made by the detaining authority that the detenue is absconding. He urged that when a petition can be filed at pre-execution stage, the detenue would naturally not surrender to custody as he wants relief at pre-detention stage. It has been so held by the Supreme Court in Alka Gadhia and Subhash gandhi. No doubt, Mr. Raval controverted the statement made by the detaining authority that the detenue is absconding. He urged that when a petition can be filed at pre-execution stage, the detenue would naturally not surrender to custody as he wants relief at pre-detention stage. If an order will be implemented or executed and a person is taken in custody, the paramount object of permitting a detenue to present a petition at pre- execution stage would become nugatory. Mr. Raval, however, forgets that when an averment is made that an order is passed before more than five months and inspite of the efforts by the police authorities, the order could not be served upon him, and that a notification was required to be issued under Sec. 7 (a) of the Act, in our considered opinion, this Court would refrain from exercising extraordinary jurisdiction to help such a person. ( 19 ) MR. Raval also argued that when the licence is suspended and the detenue is not in a position to continue his activities as alleged, the action of detention becomes punitive and not preventive. We are not impressed by this argument as well. An action of suspension was taken in accordance with the Control Order on February 27, 1997 whereas an order of detention was passed under the Act of 1980 on February 1, 1997. What would be the effect of an order of suspension of licence which was taken after an order of detention was passed cannot be decided by this Court at this stage. ( 20 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, we do not see any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Ad-interim relief granted by the learned Single Judge stands vacated. No order as to costs. . ( 21 ) MR. Raval prays that a limited ad-interim relief not to take any further action pursuant to an order of proclamation of attachment of property granted by the learned single Judge and operative till today, may be continued for some time so as to enable the appellant to approach higher forum. In the facts and circumstances, ad-interim relief granted by the learned Single Judge will continue to operate upto August 11, 1997. .