Magrey, J.: This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.08.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Ha­beas Corpus Petition (HCP) No. 426/ 2011. 2. In order to appreciate the grounds pleaded in the appeal, it becomes im­perative to give a brief resume of the facts. In terms of order No. 30/DMB/PSA/2011 dated 14.09.2011, respon­dent No. 2, in exercise of powers vested in him under Clause (a-1) of Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 or­dered detention of the detenu, namely, Yousuf Lone son of Lassi Lone resident of Charhar, Tehsil Sopore, District Baramulla, to prevent him from acting in any manner which is a threat to ecology and environment. 3. 3. Before the order of detention could be executed, the detenu filed an Ha­beas Corpus Petition seeking quashment of the same on various grounds, including that: "he has never acted in such a man­ner which would be prejudicial to the ecology and environment; that he was never arrested on any allegation as mentioned in the grounds of detention and was not in­volved in any such related offence; that the detention order is based on concocted grounds, and the copies of the detention order and grounds of detention were not furnished to him; instead he obtained the same from the office of respondent No. 2 after fil­ing an application under RTI Act; that he moved a representation against the detention order showing his innocence as he is not involved or accused in any of the FIR's al­leged against him but the same was not decided; that the detention order was not con­firmed by the Government within 12 days and also was not executed as on the date of the filing of the HCP; that the order of detention has become in fructous in the eye of law and that he cannot be detained under the aforesaid Act, which would result in miscarriage of justice and the detention order would operate as punish­ment rather than prevention; that the District Magistrate (detaining authority) has not applied his mind as there was no compelling reason and cogent material available before the detaining authority, nor is there any such thing mentioned in the or­der and grounds on the basis of which respondent No. 2 has made his subjective satisfaction; that in the grounds of detention, the detenu is shown to be involved in FIR Nos. 68,72,76, 69 of 2011 P/S Sopore, but the said FIRs are general in nature and the petitioner has never been arrested, which shows his non involvement in the said FIRs that the grounds are vague and non­existent in the eye of law and he is not involved in any activities alleged in the grounds of detention and has been implicated in a false and fabri­cated case;" 4. On the aforesaid set of facts and grounds, the detenu prayed for quash­ing the detention order and restrain the respondents to detain him in pur­suance of the aforesaid order. 5. While considering the case for admission, the learned Writ Court ob­served that no ground is made out to entertain the petition. On the aforesaid set of facts and grounds, the detenu prayed for quash­ing the detention order and restrain the respondents to detain him in pur­suance of the aforesaid order. 5. While considering the case for admission, the learned Writ Court ob­served that no ground is made out to entertain the petition. However, the Writ Court issued notice to respon­dents for filing objections, but dis­missed the interim application seek­ing stay of execution of the warrant of arrest. 6. The respondents filed a detailed reply, wherein it has been submitted that the detenu is a chronic and ha­bitual timber smuggler. The detenu has caused colossal damage to the forest wealth and has made timber smuggling his profession thereby causing unbear­able loss to the national economy. It is submitted that nefarious activities of the detenu have come in the notice of the Forest Department who initiated action against the detenu under the Provisions of Forest Act from time to time in order to prevent him from act­ing in a manner as would cause dam­age to the Forests. But the measures adopted under the Forest Act have not curbed his activities. 7. Respondents further submitted that in order to prevent the detenu from committing offensive activities, it has become imperative to detain him un­der the provisions of PSA, so that detenu's activities of timber smuggling are effectively curbed and forest wealth is saved from detenu's onslaught. It is further submitted that the petitioner has evaded arrest though the con­cerned police authorities swung into action to ensure execution of the or­der, therefore, on this ground the peti­tioner cannot maintain the writ peti­tion and without execution of warrant no writ of Habeas Corpus is maintain­able. 8. After considering the facts and the grounds pleaded by the petitioner and also on the strength of the reply filed by the respondents coupled with the perusal of the detention records, the learned writ court dismissed the writ petition (HCP) by holding that no case is made out which would call for interference at this pre-execution stage. 9. In the present appeal, appellant-detenu has reiterated the same set of facts and the grounds taken in the pe­tition which need not to be reiterated as a mention of the same has been made hereinabove. 9. In the present appeal, appellant-detenu has reiterated the same set of facts and the grounds taken in the pe­tition which need not to be reiterated as a mention of the same has been made hereinabove. However, besides the facts and grounds of challenge de­tailed out in the petition, learned coun­sel for the petitioner has submitted that order of detention cannot be ex­ecuted after inordinate delay. In sup­port of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manju Ramesh v Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 2622 . 10. We have minutely gone through the aforesaid judgment. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment is relevant to quote; "...This implies that as soon as the Govt. or its officer feels satisfied that an order under this section is neces­sary, it has to be passed and imple­mented forthwith so that the prejudi­cial activities carried on by the per­son against whom the order has been passed, may be stopped immediately or at the earliest." 11. The ratio decidendi of a judg­ment cannot be read as a Statute, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Executive Engi­neer, Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division, Orrisa and ors v. N.C Budharaj (deceased) by Lrs and ors., (2001) 2 SCC 721 . 12. In the instant case, it is high­lighted that the execution of the order was evaded by the petitioner, therefore, there is no inordinate delay in its ex­ecution on the part of the respondents. 13. Learned counsel has also relied on the judgment in the case of T.A. Abdul Rehman v. State of Kerela (1989) 4 SCC 741 , wherein it has been held that when there is undue long delay in between the prejudicial activities and passing of the detention order, then court has to scrutinize as to whether detaining authority has satisfactorily determined such delay and offered rea­sonable explanation. The law as laid down is not applicable to the present case because in the instant case ac­tivities of the petitioner continued and last such activity was noticed on 5.8.2011 and the detention order has been passed on 14.09.2011, but the or­der of detention has not been executed because the petitioner has evaded the arrest as is discernible from the records as produced. The delay is not such which would render the order, in view of the above referred law, as use­less. 14. The delay is not such which would render the order, in view of the above referred law, as use­less. 14. To seek quashment of pre-ex­ecution detention order, an excep­tional case has to be made out. The order of detention, in view of evading tactics of the petitioner, has not been executed upto this stage, no flaw is no­ticeable which would persuade the Court to treat the case as an excep­tional one so as to invoke the powers for quashing the order of detention before it is executed. The detention record would suggest that the detain­ing authority has adhered to the norms and procedure applicable up to this stage, therefore, no case is made out which would call for interference, as has been rightly held by the Learned Single Judge. The appeal does not merit admission and is thus liable to be dis­missed. 15. Accordingly the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. _________