JUDGMENT A. S. OKA, J. :- This is a Writ Petition filed for challenging the order of detention dated 25th January 2012 passed by the detaining authority under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the COFEPOSA Act"). The Petition has been filed at a pre-execution stage and the order of detention has not yet been executed. Before we deal with the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we may note that on 17th October 2012, when this Petition was called out, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the main grounds of challenge to the order of detention have been incorporated in the additional affidavit dated 9th May 2012 filed by the Petitioner. By an order dated 18th October 2012, another division Bench of this Court clarified that the Petitioner was permitted to amend the Petition vide order dated 30th April 2012 for incorporating the grounds pleaded in the additional affidavit. In view of this position, we have permitted the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner to agitate the grounds in the present Petition. 2. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner invited our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Additional Secretary to the Government of India and Others v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and Another, (1992 Supp(1) SCC 496). The said decision of the Apex Court lays down five grounds on which interference can be made with the order of preventive detention at the pre-execution stage. The said grounds are (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 or (v) that the authority which passed it had no authority to do so. 3. Before urging the grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner stated the factual aspects of the case. According to her, from the years 2005 to 2010, M/s. R.S. Cranes, M/s. Crane Transport and M/s. R.S. Infra Project Services imported old cranes and sold some of them on high sea. 3. Before urging the grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner stated the factual aspects of the case. According to her, from the years 2005 to 2010, M/s. R.S. Cranes, M/s. Crane Transport and M/s. R.S. Infra Project Services imported old cranes and sold some of them on high sea. Her contention was that all the cranes were imported after the examination by a Chartered Engineer, after the examination of cranes by the officers of the custom department, on assessment of the value and rate of duty by the custom officers and on submission of the bill of entry. Her submission is that there was no mis-declaration of brand, model, make and the year of manufacture in any of the cranes. Her contention is that out of a large number of importers of the cranes, a detention proposal of only five persons including the Petitioner has been scrutinized. Her contention is that no detention order has been passed against the officers of customs under the Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act for abetting and aiding smuggling. She pointed out that the custom authorities have not completed the investigation and even before completion of the investigation, the proposal for detention was processed and cleared. Her contention is that only the allegation against the Petitioner is that while importing the cranes, the same were undervalued resulting into evasion of custom duties and that the remaining amount of the price is sent via unofficial channel to the overseas suppliers. She pointed out that after a show-cause notice is issued under Section 28 read with Section 124 of the Customs Act, the noticee can make an application for settlement of duty before the Settlement Commissioner which would be governed by Sections 127A to 127N of the Chapter XIVA of the Customs Act. She pointed out that such an application can be filed only after the show-cause notice is issued and that the Petitioner has not been served with the show-cause notice. She pointed out that the bill of entry regarding import of the old cranes was presented, on the basis of which the valuation and assessment of the duties was made. She pointed out that the said bill of entry was not sent to the sponsoring authority and was, therefore, not considered by the detaining authority. She pointed out that the bill of entry regarding import of the old cranes was presented, on the basis of which the valuation and assessment of the duties was made. She pointed out that the said bill of entry was not sent to the sponsoring authority and was, therefore, not considered by the detaining authority. She pointed out that the summons was issued by the Directorate of the Revenue Intelligence under Section 108 of the Customs Act and under duress, the amounts of Rs.50 lacs, Rs.25 lacs and Rs.25 lacs were recovered from the Petitioner towards custom duty. She urged that under duress, four inculpatory statements of the Petitioner were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. After the Petitioner was arrested, he retracted all his inculpatory statements on the ground that the same were obtained under duress. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out that on 5th January 2011, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court ordered the Petitioner to be enlarged on bail. As a matter of fact, she pointed out that the four retracted statements were not placed before the detaining authority. She also pointed out the grounds on which the co-detenu Madan Lalwani has been detained. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out that under the order dated 18th April 2012 passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.1502 of 2012, the execution of the order of detention passed against another co-detenu Vijay Ram Bilas Gupta has been stayed. 4. The first submission is that recourse could have been taken to the normal law of land by taking an action against the Petitioner under the Customs Act. She pointed out the relevant Valuation Rules of 2007 as well as Circular dated 12th February 2008 and the procedure laid down therein for valuation of the goods. Her submission is that the Petitioner has been granted bail on stringent conditions and a sum of Rs. 1 crore has been forcibly extracted from him. Her submission is that there is no reason to incarcerate the Petitioner under the law of preventive detention. She pointed out that during the span of five years from 2005 to 2010, there were instances of import of 600 second hand cranes but the sponsoring authority and the detaining authority have initiated the proposal for action of detention only in five cases. She pointed out that during the span of five years from 2005 to 2010, there were instances of import of 600 second hand cranes but the sponsoring authority and the detaining authority have initiated the proposal for action of detention only in five cases. Her second submission is that there is 15 months' delay in issuing the order of detention which had snapped the live link between the prejudicial activities of the Petitioner and issuance of detention order. Her submission is that the Screening Authority had mechanically approved the proposal for passing the order of detention against the Petitioner. Her submission is that the order has been issued for wrong purpose and on irrelevant, extraneous, vague and non-existing grounds. 5. Her further submission is that the sponsoring authority has not lodged any prosecution against the Petitioner. He pointed out that on 21st October 2010, the house of the Petitioner was raided and from that date till the date of impugned order, the Petitioner has not imported any second-hand crane. 6. Her submission is that the valuation has to be made as per the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. She pointed out that though the Petitioner had taken a recourse to the said rules and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has adopted an arbitrary method for determining the value of the second-hand crane which is against the provisions of the Customs Act. Her contention is that there is no material to show that the Petitioner is involved in a racket or that he has indulged in prejudicial activities to this extent. 7. Inviting our attention to the grounds of detention in support of the order of detention passed against Shri Madan Lalwani, she urged that the retraction statement-cum-reply was not placed before the detaining authority. She pointed out that the order of detention against the said Madan Lalwani was passed on the ground of failure to consider the vital documents. She relied upon the decision of this Court dated 19th April 2012 by which the order of detention against Madan Lalwani was set aside. Her submission is that the retraction statements of the Petitioner were not placed before the detaining authority and, therefore, the Grounds (iii) and (iv) in the case of Alka Subhash Gadia (supra) are attracted. She relied upon the decision of this Court dated 19th April 2012 by which the order of detention against Madan Lalwani was set aside. Her submission is that the retraction statements of the Petitioner were not placed before the detaining authority and, therefore, the Grounds (iii) and (iv) in the case of Alka Subhash Gadia (supra) are attracted. She pointed out that the detaining authority has not considered the fact that from 20th July 2010 for about 15 months, the Petitioner had not engaged in the activities of aiding smuggling. She pointed out that in the additional affidavit, a specific contention of mala fide has been raised. She relied upon several decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court. The learned APP submitted that considering the limited scope laid down in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Alka Subhash Gadia (supra), no interference is called for. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner heavily relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2008) 16 SCC 14 : [2009 ALL SCR 105] as well as a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Arora v. Union of India, (2006)4 SCC 796 . Her submission is that non-placement of the relevant material before the detaining authority vitiates the detention order on the grounds (iii) and (iv) set out in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Alka Subhas Gadia (supra). The learned counsel submitted that non-placement of material documents is also a ground available to the Petitioner to challenge the order of detention at the pre-execution stage. 8. The learned APP submitted that the decisions in the cases of Deepak Bajaj, [2009 ALL SCR 105] and Rajendra Arora (supra) do not lay down as a proposition of law that in every case non-placement of the material documents before the detaining authority is a ground to interfere with the detention order at the pre-execution stage. Her submission is that no interference is called for in the impugned order. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions. As far as the scope of interference with the order of detention at pre-execution stage in writ jurisdiction is concerned, the law has been laid down in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Alka Subhash Gadia (supra). 10. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions. As far as the scope of interference with the order of detention at pre-execution stage in writ jurisdiction is concerned, the law has been laid down in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Alka Subhash Gadia (supra). 10. We have already noted five grounds laid down in the case of Alka Subhash Gadia (supra) therein on which interference can be made with the order of detention at the pre-execution stage. In the present case, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has pressed into service the two Grounds viz. Ground Nos. (iii) and (iv) viz. that the order is passed for a wrong purpose and that it is passed on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner had invited our attention to the order dated 18th April 2012 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1502 of 2012. The said Petition has been filed by Shri Vijay Ram Silas Gupta, co-detenu of the Petitioner, who has challenged the order of detention at the pre-execution stage. By the said order, this Court granted the stay of execution of the order of detention. We may note here that in the facts of the said case, after the order of detention was passed, the proposal for settlement filed by the Petitioner therein under Section 127B of the Customs Act was accepted and immunity was granted by the Settlement Commissioner. In the light of the said factual aspect, this Court had granted interim relief in this Petition. In case of the present Petitioner, admittedly, there is no such order passed by the Settlement Commissioner. Moreover, the observations made in the said order will have to be read as prima facie observations as the said order is an interim order. 11. The main submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner based on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Bajaj, [2009 ALL SCR 105] (supra) is that non-placement of vital documents before the detaining authority vitiates the detention order and in such a case, the Grounds (iii) and (iv) set out in the decision in the case of Alka Subhash Gadia (supra) are attracted. Reliance was placed on the Paragraph 18 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Bajaj, [2009 ALL SCR 105] (supra) which reads thus:- "18. Apart from the above, in our opinion non-placement of the relevant materials before the detaining authority vitiates the detention order, and Grounds (iii) and (iv) of the decision of this Court in Alka Subhash Gadia case are attracted in such a situation as held in Rajinder Arora v. Union of India (vide sec para 25 of the said decision). Hence, even if we treat the five exceptions mentioned in Alka Subhash Gadia case as exhaustive, the present case is covered by the third and fourth exceptions of those five exceptions, as held in Rajinder Arora case." The said decision in turn relies upon the earlier decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Arora (supra). It will be necessary to make a reference to the said decision in the case of Rajinder Arora (supra). A Writ Petition was filed by the Appellant before the High Court in challenging the order of detention under the COFEPOSA Act. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court. The submissions made by the Appellant before the Apex Court have been summarized on Paragraph 8 of the judgment. "8. Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would raise the following contentions: (i) Licences granted to the appellant were allowed to be surrendered by competent authorities only after an objective assessment was made in that behalf. (ii) The status report called for by the Customs Authorities from DGFT having not been considered, the detaining authority must be held to have failed to take into consideration a relevant fact, as there in it was opined that no case had been made out for detention. (iii) As the appellant filed a complaint against the officer alleging illegal detention and torture meted out by him, the impugned order of detention has been passed mala fide. (iv) The appellant having deposited Rs.60 lakhs without prejudice to his rights and contentions, and, thus, the impugned order of detention having been made for unauthorised purpose, was mala fide. Had there been any material before the appropriate authority, they would have lodged a complaint against the appellant. (iv) The appellant having deposited Rs.60 lakhs without prejudice to his rights and contentions, and, thus, the impugned order of detention having been made for unauthorised purpose, was mala fide. Had there been any material before the appropriate authority, they would have lodged a complaint against the appellant. (v) There was absolutely no reason as to why such a long time was taken for passing the order of detention." In Paragraph 11 of the said decision in the case of Rajinder Arora (supra), the Apex Court referred to the decision in the case of Alka Subhash Gadia (supra). As we have pointed out earlier, one of the grounds of challenge before the Apex Court was that the status report called for by the Customs Authorities from DGFT was not taken into consideration by the detaining authority. In Paragraph 14 of the said decision, in the case of Rajinder Arora (Supra), the Apex Court negatived the said grounds by observing thus: "14. Mr. Lalit, however, is not correct in his submissions that only because a redemption certificate had been granted by DGFT, the same would itself be sufficient for quashing an order of detention as the activities of smuggling on the part of the importer may come to their notice at a later part of time." In Paragraph 20, the Apex Court observed that there was no explanation as to why the order of detention was issued after such a long time. In Paragraphs 22 and 23 of the said decision in the case of Rajinder Arora (supra), the Apex Court observed thus:- "22. The delay caused in this case in issuing the order of detention has not been explained. In fact, no reason in that behalf whatsoever has been assigned at all." 23. Admittedly, furthermore, the status report called for from the Customs Department has not been taken into consideration by the competent authorities." Ultimately, in Paragraph 25 of the said decision in the case of Rajinder Arora (supra), the Apex Court held thus: "25. Having regard to the findings aforementioned, we are of the opinion that Grounds (iii) and (iv) of the decision of this Court in Alka Subhash Gadia are attracted in the instant case." 12. Having regard to the findings aforementioned, we are of the opinion that Grounds (iii) and (iv) of the decision of this Court in Alka Subhash Gadia are attracted in the instant case." 12. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner based on the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court was sought to be countered by the learned AGP for the Respondents on the basis of the common judgment delivered in three Writ Petitions in the case of Ajay Bajaj v: State of Maharashtra & Others, 2011(2) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 198 : [2011 ALL MR (Cri) 726]. Even in this case, reliance was placed on the Grounds (iii) and (iv) set out in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Alka Subhash Gadia. It was contended by the learned APP that this Court has explained the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court. However, we find that to that extent, the learned APP is not right. 13. As regards the ground of non-placement of document is concerned, it is contended that the retraction statements of the Petitioner were not placed before the detaining authority and even bill of entry was not placed before the detaining authority. 14. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Deepak Bajaj, [2009 ALL SCR 105] and Rajinder Arora (supra), we called upon the learned APP to produce the files. After having perused the files, we find that the ground of non-placement of material documents (retraction statements and bill of entry) has no merit at all. As the Petition is at the pre-execution stage, it will not be appropriate to reproduce the details of the material placed before the detaining authority. Suffice it to say that the ground of non-placement of alleged vital documents before the detaining authority has no merit. 15. One of the contentions is that out of 600 importers of second-hand cranes, only few have been picked up against whom the detention order has been passed. Reliance is placed on the orders passed by this Court in the case of a co-detenu viz. Madan Lalwani. We have perused the judgment and order dated 19th April 2012 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the said case. Reliance is placed on the orders passed by this Court in the case of a co-detenu viz. Madan Lalwani. We have perused the judgment and order dated 19th April 2012 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the said case. We find that in the facts of the case, the order of detention was set aside on the ground that the retraction statements-cum-reply were not placed before the detaining authority. 16. A contention is raised based on the relevant Rules regarding valuation. While examining a challenge to the order of detention, this Court is not concerned with the merits of the decision but is concerned only with the decision making process. The allegation of the Petitioner is that he was forced to pay custom duty of Rs. 1 crore. The fact remains that the Petitioner paid the custom duty of Rs. 1 crore in the months of October and November 2010. We must note here that the order of detention has been passed with a view to prevent the Petitioner from indulging in smuggling activities. Therefore, the deposit of the sum of Rs. 1 crore does not affect the merits of the order of detention. 17. Another contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner was of delay of 15 months in passing the order of detention. The Division Bench in the case of Ajay Bajaj, [2011 ALL MR (Cri) 726] (supra) after considering the earlier decisions of the Apex Court including Deepak Bajaj, [2009 ALL SCR 105] (supra) held that the ground of delay in issuing the detention order or delay in execution of the order is not covered by any of the five grounds laid down in the case of Alka Subhash Gadia (supra). It is held that the said ground cannot be considered in a Petition challenging the detention order at pre-execution stage. Hence, the argument based on delay cannot be considered in this Petition. 18. At this state, it will be necessary to make a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Others v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande, (2008)3 SCC 613 : [2008 ALL SCR 1517]. In Paragraph 40, the Apex Court quoted a paragraph in the decision of the case of Alka Subhash Gadia (supra) which reads thus: "40. .. In Paragraph 40, the Apex Court quoted a paragraph in the decision of the case of Alka Subhash Gadia (supra) which reads thus: "40. .. ...It is in pursuance of this self-evolved judicial policy and in conformity with the self-imposed internal restrictions that the Courts insist that the aggrieved person first allow the due operation and implementation of the concerned law and exhaust the remedies provided by it before approaching the High Court and this Court to invoke their discretionary, extraordinary, and equitable jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 respectively. That jurisdiction by its very nature is to be used sparingly and in circumstances where no other efficacious remedy is available. We have while discussing the relevant authorities earlier dealt in detail with the circumstances under which these extraordinary powers are used and are declined to be used by the Courts. To accept Shri Jain's present contention would mean that the courts should disregard all these time-honoured and well-tested judicial self-restraints and norms and exercise their said powers, in every case before the detention order is executed. Secondly, as has been rightly pointed out by Shri Sibbal for the appellants, as far as detention orders are concerned if in every case a detenu is permitted to challenge and seek the stay of the operation of the order before it is executed, the very purpose of the order and of the law under which it is made will be frustrated since such orders are in operation only for a limited period. Thirdly, and this is more important, it is not correct to say that the courts have no power to entertain grievances against any detention order prior to its execution. Thirdly, and this is more important, 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 interfered 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 or (v) that the authority which passed it had no authority to do so. The refusal by the courts to use their extraordinary power of judicial review to interfere with the detention orders prior to their execution on any other grounds does not amount to the abandonment of the said power or to their denial to the proposed detenu, but prevents their abuse and the perversion of the law in question." (underline supplied) After considering what is held above in the decision in the case of Alka Subhash Gadia (supra), the Apex Court observed in paragraph 58 thus:–– "58. From the foregoing discussion, in our judgment, the law appears to be fairly well-settled and it is this. As a general rule, an order of detention passed by a Detaining Authority under relevant 'preventive detention' law cannot be set aside by a Writ Court at the pre-execution or pre-arrest stage unless the Court is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances specified in Alka Subhash Gadia. The Court must be conscious and mindful of the fact that this is a 'suspicious jurisdiction' i.e. jurisdiction based on suspicion and an action is taken 'with a view to preventing' a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to certain activities enumerated in the relevant detention law. Interference by a Court of Law at that stage must be an exception rather than a rule and circumspection. Interference by a Court of Law at that stage must be an exception rather than a rule and circumspection. A detenu cannot ordinarily seek a writ of mandamus if he does not surrender and is not served with an order of detention and the grounds in support of such order." (Underline added) 19. Thus, interference can be made at the pre-execution stage with the order of detention only in limited category set out in the case of Alka Subhash Gadia. Moreover, the Apex Court has held that interference by the writ Court, at this stage, is an exception inasmuch as the detenu cannot ordinarily seek a writ of mandamus if he does not surrender and is not served with the order of detention and grounds set out in support of the said order. 20. We are satisfied that neither the Ground (iii) nor the Ground (iv) laid down in the case of Alka Subhash Gadia (supra) are attracted in the present case. 21. Therefore, we cannot make an exception to the general rule in this case by quashing the order of detention at pre-execution stage. There is no merit in the Petition and the same is accordingly rejected. The Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. 22. We make it clear that the observations made in the judgment are confined to the challenge to the order of detention at the pre-execution stage. We make it clear that after the order of detention is executed, it will be open for the Petitioner to challenge the same on all the permissible grounds in accordance with law. Petition dismissed.