JUDGMENT : 1. This is the second round of litigation by the petitioner challenging the detention order issued under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1947 even before its execution. The said order was issued on 14.03.1990 and the challenge made to the same before the Calcutta High Court was dismissed as early as on 24.07.1990. All these years, the detention order could not be executed as apparently the petitioner has thrown a challenge to the authority of law and the efficiency of the authorities concerned by going underground. He has played a hide and seek game. ‘Catch me, if you can’ is the obvious challenge thrown by him. He, who is the cause for the delay, is now before this Court, in an attempt to perpetuate the non-execution of the order, seeking a Mandamus to restrain the authorities from executing the order. The law and the law enforcing authorities of this country are not as weak as he believes them to be. The system which is founded on the concept of Rule of Law which owes its existence to the people shall prove to be supreme. The story of the petitioner, whose conduct is a challenge to the working of the system, goes like this. 2. The Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, by an order dated 14.03.1990, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 3(1) of the ‘Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974’ directed the petitioner to be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Chennai. The Address of the petitioner in the said detention order was given as Shri Virendra Mehta, S/o Motilal Mehta residing at (i) No.9-E, Chandanbala Apartments, Vepery, Madras - 7 and also at No.315 & 316, Akash Ganga Apartments, Flowers Road, Madras - 10. 3. Even before the said order of detention could be executed, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the said detention order before the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A.T. No.1363 of 1990. On admitting the said case, the Calcutta High Court passed an interim order of stay on 23.04.1990. Then the department filed a petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking to vacate the said interim order of stay. On admitting the said case, the Calcutta High Court passed an interim order of stay on 23.04.1990. Then the department filed a petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking to vacate the said interim order of stay. The matter was argued at length before the Calcutta High Court with reference to all the grounds raised in the said case. The Calcutta High Court by an order dated 12.04.1991 was pleased to vacate the interim order dated 23.04.1990. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not surrender before the authorities to undergo the detention. He was not available at his ordinary place of residence. Several steps taken by the respondents to execute the detention order could not succeed. 4. According to the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the Calcutta High Court ultimately dismissed the case filed by him in F.M.A.T.No.1363 of 1990 dated 24.07.1990 itself. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not choose to surrender before the authorities to undergo detention. The respondents also could not execute the detention order despite several steps taken. 5. While so, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the very same detention order dated 14.03.1990. In this writ petition it is his contention that the detention order was not executed for about 23 years by the respondents, though the respondents were well aware of the residential address of the petitioner and that he was very much available for them to execute the detention order. It is also contended that the petitioner was appearing before various forums including the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore before whom a case under FERA was pending. 6. The learned counsel further pointed out that at one point of time, the petitioner was even arrested by the police and he was remanded to judicial custody by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and later on he came out on bail. Despite all the above facts, according to the petitioner, knowing the availability of the petitioner, the respondents have not executed the detention order. Thus on the ground of inordinate delay, according to the petitioner the detention order is liable to be interfered with. 7. In the counter filed by the respondents 2 and 4, it has been narrated as to what are the steps taken by the respondents to execute the detention order. Thus on the ground of inordinate delay, according to the petitioner the detention order is liable to be interfered with. 7. In the counter filed by the respondents 2 and 4, it has been narrated as to what are the steps taken by the respondents to execute the detention order. It is stated in the counter that at the time when the detention order was passed, the petitioner was residing in Chennai and after that his whereabouts were not known. Every effort taken to locate the petitioner went in vain. The abortive steps taken by the respondents to execute the order have been narrated in detail in the counter. Number of documents have also been filed. According to the respondents, the delay was caused only by the petitioner and so, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of the same. Thus, according to the respondents, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents has produced a number of communications from the respondents 2 and 3 and also from the police in respect of the steps taken to secure him. The earliest one is a report submitted by the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate on 18.05.1991, wherein the Deputy Director has stated as follows: “As directed by CEO(Int) proceeded to the sub. Premises on 18.05.1991 by 6.30 hrs along with Shri T.Saravanan, AEO, Madras, to make discreet enquiries reg. the whereabouts of the said Shri.Virendra Mehta. Enquiries made revealed that Shri.Virendra Mehta was not available at the said premises and was further said to be out of Madras. Maintained a watch on the sub. Premises till 08.00 hrs.” 9. Again another proceedings was issued by the Deputy Director on 29.05.1991 in proceeding No.T-1/12-SZ/City/90-CP, wherein the Deputy Director has stated as follows: “In the above case, a detention order No.673/75/90-CUS VIII dated 14.03.1990 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi is pending execution. Shri Virendra Mehta had filed a writ petition Co.No.4033(w) of 1990 in the High Court of Calcutta. The interim injunction granted by the said Court is reported to have been vacated as per letter dated 15.04.1991 of Shri Prantosh Mookherjee, Advocate, High Court, Calcutta. The detailed order/judgment of the Court is awaited. 2. Shri Virendra Mehta had filed a writ petition Co.No.4033(w) of 1990 in the High Court of Calcutta. The interim injunction granted by the said Court is reported to have been vacated as per letter dated 15.04.1991 of Shri Prantosh Mookherjee, Advocate, High Court, Calcutta. The detailed order/judgment of the Court is awaited. 2. In the meanwhile, we made discreet enquiries and kept surveillance at the known address of Shri Mehta at Madras on 04.05.91, 06.05.91 and 18.05.91 but he was not noticed. Discreet enquiries revealed that he might be either at Bombay or had gone to Singapore. 3. In view of the foregoing the following further course of action is suggested:- (i) Issue of a Red Alert through the DRI for which necessary available details are furnished in the proforma and (ii) Request the Ministry to initiate action under Section 7(i)(b) and 7(i)(a) of the Act.” 10. The next letter is dated 17.06.1991, from the AED, Madras, in which it is stated as follows: “Proceeded to the premises at No.104, 9th Flat, Chandra Bala Apartments, Vepery, Madras - 7 by about 20.00 hrs and maintained surveillance till about 22.30 hrs as the said premises was found locked. Enquiries made with their neighbours did not throw any light on Shri Mehta’s whereabouts.” 11. The next order is dated 10.07.1991, from the Under Secretary to Government of India, wherein the Central Government has passed the following order: “Whereas the Central Government has reasons to believe that the aforesaid person has absconder or is concealing himself so that the order cannot be executed. Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 7 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs the aforesaid person to appear before the Commissioner of Police, Madras within 7 days of the publication of this order in the official Gazette.” 12. The next letter is from one AEO, Madras dated 15.07.1991. He has again reported that the petitioner was not present and he could not be traced. 13. The next letter is dated 05.08.1991, from one AEO, Madras, wherein he has stated as follows: “As directed by CEO (Int) proceeded to Flat 315 & 316 Akash Ganga Apartments, Flowers Road, Madras to make discreet enquiries regarding Shri Mehta. As the premises was found locked had to rely on the information provided by their neighbours. 13. The next letter is dated 05.08.1991, from one AEO, Madras, wherein he has stated as follows: “As directed by CEO (Int) proceeded to Flat 315 & 316 Akash Ganga Apartments, Flowers Road, Madras to make discreet enquiries regarding Shri Mehta. As the premises was found locked had to rely on the information provided by their neighbours. However, their neighbours did not seem to know about Shri.Mehta’s whereabouts. Further, proceeded to No.104, 9th Flat, Chandan Bala Apartments, Madras - 7 and made discreet enquiries regarding the whereabouts of Shir.Mehta. Since the premises was found locked, made enquiries with their neighbours, who were of no held. Surveillance was maintained at Chandan Bala Apartments from 10.00 hours to 11.45 hours.” 14. Several such letters and orders issued by the authorities show the efforts taken by the authorities to detain the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi in his letter dated 20.09.1991, has stated as follows: “As regards Shri Virendra Mehta, please refer to my report of even No. dated 29.05.1991, wherein I have already suggested action under Section 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a) and also issue of a red alert. This proposal was sent as Shri Virendra Mehta was not available in spite of three attempts made on 04.05.1991, 06.05.1991 and 18.05.1991. Subsequent to this, attempts were made alternatively at both the known places at Madras on 14.06.1991, 13.07.1991, 04.08.1991 and 11.09.1991 but he was not available. From his statement dated 20.10.89, it is seen that residential flat at 9E, Chandanbala Apartments, No.1/3, Atkinson Road, Veperty, Madras 7 is in the name of his wife Smt.Surekha Mehta and the Flat at No.315-316, Akash Ganga, Flowers Road, Madras - 7 is in the name of his son Shri Mahavir Mehta. Since Shri Virendra Mehta is absconding, action under Section 7(1)(b) flowed by 7(1)(a) may be initiated immediately.” 15. While these actions were taken by the Department, the wife of the petitioner sent a letter on 01.11.1991, to the Hon’ble Minister for Finance, Government of India, New Delhi wherein, inter alia, she has stated as follows: “My whole family - myself, my husband and my two sons are Income Tax and Wealth Tax assesses and we have been regularly filling our returns and paying our taxes. But as our records, books of accounts etc. have been seized by the Authorities we are unable to file our Returns for the last two years. But as our records, books of accounts etc. have been seized by the Authorities we are unable to file our Returns for the last two years. My whole family has been subjected to uncalled for harassment and victimisation for the last 2 and a quarter years by subjecting us to raids by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the Enforcement Directorate (FERA) and CBI along with officials of the Income Tax Department (17.5.1991). Now the officials of the Enforcement Directorate, Madras are sending the local police of Tamil Nadu to harass us. Lately on 11.10.1991 Mr.Thyagaraj, who identified himself as being an official of the Crime Branch (Tamil Nadu Police) forced entry into my house along with six persons at late night 11.00 P.M. when I was alone with my minor son and young maid servant. He ransacked the whole house, used vulgar language against me and threatened to arrest my minor son and young maid servant. At the intervention of my neighbours Mr.Thyagaraj and his party beat a hasty retreat stating that they had been asked to come here by the officials of the Enforcement Directorate (FERA), Madras. This type of harassment and mental torture goes on unabated and I and my whole family and minor son are going through hell. Since nothing incriminating has been found against my husband, Shri Virendra Motilal Mehta, the Ministry of Finance should consider his case sympathetically in the interest of justice. I feel personally that we are victimised, harassed and frustrated because of putting my husband under such Acts, without his involvement in any crime, as the alleged incriminating evidence is malafide and forged. As such, I beseech your Honour to kindly intervene in the matter and consider the case of my husband sympathetically and revoke the Detention Order under the COFEPOSA Act and drop the other proceedings in the interest of justice.” 16. On receipt of the same, the Under Secretary to Government of India sent a letter to the wife of the petitioner in letter F.No.686/299/90-CUS.VIII, dated 04.02.1992, wherein she was requested as follows: “With reference to her representation dt.1.11.1991, addressed to the Hon’ble Minister for Finance, Smt.Surekha V. Mehta is hereby informed that the said representation for dropping action under CIFEPOSA Act against her husband, Shri Virendra Mehta has been carefully considered by the Central Government, but it is regretted that the same has been rejected. She is however advised to ask her husband to surrender before the police authorities. She is further informed that relevant record, if any, which facilitates filing returns may be returned, if required.” 17. Despite that, the petitioner did not surrender. Thereafter, there were several such attempts made in the year 1992 also. Enormous records have been produced before this Court to show the steps taken to locate the petitioner and to detain him. One such letter is dated 01.08.1992 from one Additional Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu to the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate, Chennai wherein the Additional Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu has stated as follows: “I am to invite your attention to the references cited and to state that the detention order issued against the above individual is still pending execution. It is reported by the Police that sustained efforts taken to apprehend the individual did not yield any result and enquiries made with the wife and son of the individual also did not throw any light on the whereabouts of the individual. I am, therefore, to request you to cause necessary discreet enquiries to be made through your agency and if there is any useful information the same may be conveyed to the Commissioner of Police, Madras under intimation to this department. As the order is pending from 1990, I am to request you to take early action in this regard.” 18. Then on 03.09.1992, the petitioner has sent a letter to the Registrar, Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, New Delhi authorising one Mr.A.S.Sundar Rajan, Consultant as his authorised representative to represent his case. The said appeal was preferred under Section 52 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 against the Order (Original) No. SDE(R)IV/84-86/92, dated 31.07.1992. 19. Again, continuously there were efforts taken by the Department to execute the warrant which could not fortify. The wife of the petitioner again sent a letter dated 15.02.1994 to the Minister of State, wherein she has stated inter alia as follows: “7. In the end I will say that my husband has been implicated in a conspiracy on the basis of false documents. From the proceedings it is clear that the intention was to damage my husband’s reputation, to create problems and to cause harm. Again I present before you that nothing has been found against my husband Shri Virendra Motilal Mehta. In the end I will say that my husband has been implicated in a conspiracy on the basis of false documents. From the proceedings it is clear that the intention was to damage my husband’s reputation, to create problems and to cause harm. Again I present before you that nothing has been found against my husband Shri Virendra Motilal Mehta. The Finance Minster should sympathetically view this according to law. Since last 3 years my family is saddened and pained by the searches conducted by F.E.R.A., C.B.I., Income Tax Departments. Not only this Enforcement Directorate is now sending Tamil Nadu Police to trouble us. I conclude by saying about the bad luck of my family and my younger son’s mental worries due to the troubles. My husband’s innocence and being implicated in a case makes us more sad. I present before you all the facts and pray to you to take sympathetic view of my husband and to stay the detention order. From your sympathetic heart I expect to get full justice. Regarding this subject, Shri J.V.Shah, Member of Parliament had recommended my case on 23rd October, 1990 to Finance Minister Prof.Madhu Dandavate and made an appeal to him to enquire this matter. All along we have been meeting concerned ministers and all departments and made an appeal to repeal the detention order. As we have good relation with Rajasthan Businessman, the delegation of Rajasthani M.L.As met Shri Rajesh Pilot, Finance Minister and requested him to enquire about this file and repeal the detention order.” 20. On 17.03.1994, the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate, Chennai requested the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai to make necessary enquiries at the addresses in Mumbai to find out the present whereabouts of Shri Virendra Mehta and if the said person is available he may please be apprehended and his office may be informed. In response to the same, a report was submitted on 20.04.1994, which shows that the petitioner could not be located even in the addresses given in Mumbai. 21. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu wrote a letter dated 28.04.1994 to the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate, Chennai to send all the documents relating to Thiru. Virendra Mehta for further action. 21. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu wrote a letter dated 28.04.1994 to the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate, Chennai to send all the documents relating to Thiru. Virendra Mehta for further action. On 20.07.1994, the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu wrote a letter to the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate, Chennai which reads as follows: “I am to invite your attention to the reference cited and to state that the detention order issued by the Government of India against Thiru Virendra Mehta son of Thiru Motilal Mehta is still pending execution and despite best efforts taken by the police he could not be located. As the order is pending for more than 4 years, I am to request you to take up the matter with the Government of India to examine the possibility of revoking the orders, as there appear to be no possibility of apprehending him in the near future. Further, he also does not appear to have come to adverse notice after this offence. It is therefore, felt that no useful purpose would be served by keeping an order pending indefinitely without any clue. I am to request you to take an early action in the matter and arrange to send an early report to this department.” 22. In the year 1995, again the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu wrote a letter to the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate wherein he has stated as follows: “I am to invite attention to the reference cited and to state that the detention order issued by the Government of India against the above individual is still pending execution and despite sustained efforts taken by the police, he could not be apprehended. Further no information is forthcoming from the Enforcement Directorate about the whereabouts of the individual. 2. The detention order which was issued as early as on 14.03.1990 and it is pending for more than four years without any clue, it is felt that no useful purpose would be served by keeping it pending without any clue. Further the above individual also does not appear to have come to notice thereafter. I am therefore, to request you to look into the matter and examine whether the order could be revoked and to send an early reply in the matter to this Government.” 23. Further the above individual also does not appear to have come to notice thereafter. I am therefore, to request you to look into the matter and examine whether the order could be revoked and to send an early reply in the matter to this Government.” 23. On 09.08.2000, the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu again wrote a letter to the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate, Chennai, wherein he has stated as follows: “I am to invite attention to the references cited and to state that the detention order issued by the Government of India against Thiru Virendra Mehta is pending execution since 23.03.1990 without any clue. I am to request that the latest information/clue, if any, about the whereabouts of the individual may be informed to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai for early apprehension, under intimation to this Government.” 24. There were similar communications between the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate dated 15.05.2001, 24.05.2001, 09.10.2001, 10.12.2001, 15.02.2002, 04.04.2002, 12.06.2002, 10.07.2002, 22.07.2003, 27.06.2003, 24.09.2003, 20.11.2003, 19.02.2004, 29.04.2004, 28.06.2004, 13.08.2004, 02.11.2004, 09.02.2009, 22.03.2011, etc., 25. On 22.03.2011, the Enforcement Officer submitted a report which reads as follows: “As directed by Shri.Sadiq, E.O., I went to verify the address to Shri.Ratna Mohamed, S/0. Syed Abdul Rahman, No.27, Angappa Naicken Street, Chennai - 1. But the above mentioned person was not available there. When I made enquiry with the people who are living around there, I came to know that the said person sold his house to one Farook Bai and he went somewhere. So I could not locate the above said person. Subsequently, I went to verify the address of Shri.Virendra Mehta, No.315-316, Akash Ganga Apartments, Flowers Road, Chennai - 10. But the above mentioned person was not available there. When I made enquiry with the people who are living around there, I came to know that person sold his house to one Smt.Uki Bai few years back. Then, I proceeded to verify another address of Shri Virendra Metha, No.9E, Chandanbala Apartments, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. This flat was locked and the above said person was not available there. So I enquired with his neighbour one Mr.Vinoth Kumar Khemka, S/o. Kashi Prasad Khemka, he said that the above said flat is always found locked and he does not know where the Virendra Metha is presently residing. This flat was locked and the above said person was not available there. So I enquired with his neighbour one Mr.Vinoth Kumar Khemka, S/o. Kashi Prasad Khemka, he said that the above said flat is always found locked and he does not know where the Virendra Metha is presently residing. Hence, his present address could not be ascertained. Further, I enquired at the addresses of No.4, Boat Club Road, 3rd Avenue, Chennai - 28 and No.13, Ranjith Road, Kottur, Chennai - 600 085 and No.47-A, Justice V.Ramasamy Road, Kamaraj Avenue, Chennai - 600 020 about Shri.Kapil Chandha. It was learnt that Shri.Kapil Chandha, had resided all the above mentioned three addresses but he had vacated from the above address long back and his whereabouts are not known.” 26. On 17.03.2013, one AEO after conducting a search has reported as follows: “On 11.03.2013, I proceeded to No.9E, Chandanbala Apartments, Vepery, Chennai - 7, another address of Shri Virendra Mehta. His wife Smt.Surekeh Mehta was available who informed that her husband has gone out of station. However, discreet enquires made in the same building and with one Shri Muthu who is the watchman of the said apartments revealed that the said Shri Virendra Mehta is residing at Flat No.9E, along with his wife and it was further gathered he is attending ACMM EO-II, Court for some trial of the CBI case. Therefore, enquires were also made at ACMM EO-II Court and it was learnt that Shri Virendra Mehta is appearing for a case C.C.No.96/95 filed by CBI and the case is posted for next hearing on 21.03.2013. 27. In the meanwhile, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai issued a proclamation warrant in Form 4 under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same was sent to the Chief Enforcement Officer for information by the Commissioner of Police vide his letter in Rc.No.582/106916/cc III/03, dated 01.12.2003. Again on 21.11.2003, the Directorate of Enforcement made a publication in the New Indian Express giving wide publicity of the above proclamation in respect of the case in C.C.No.32 of 1994. 28. After all these exercise, the police, finally arrested the petitioner and produced him before the Magistrate. He was remanded to custody in connection with the criminal case and later on, he was relased on bail even before the detention order could be executed by the fourth respondent. 29. 28. After all these exercise, the police, finally arrested the petitioner and produced him before the Magistrate. He was remanded to custody in connection with the criminal case and later on, he was relased on bail even before the detention order could be executed by the fourth respondent. 29. Relying on the above events and the action taken, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that it is not a case where there was any delay caused by the department in the matter of executing the detention order. The delay was caused only by the petitioner as he adopted all methods by hiding himself elsewhere without surrendering. In view of the above, according to the learned counsel for the respondents the only ground raised by the petitioner should fail. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondents would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 30. But the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently submit that the pre-detention order can be challenged on certain grounds as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2008) 16 SCC 14. The learned counsel would further submit that since a person’s personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is involved, the principle of res judicata will not apply and therefore the writ petition is maintainable. 31. The learned counsel would further submit that though the petitioner was very much available and that he was appearing before various forums including before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in connection with a criminal case, the detention order was not executed for more than 22 years. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 32. I have considered the above submissions. 33. In Government of India Vs. Alka Subhash Gadia reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 496 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the Courts are satisfied on certain grounds which are enumerated in the judgment, then by using its extraordinary power of judicial review, the Courts can interfere with the detention order prior to the execution of the same. Regarding this legal proposition, there can be no second opinion. Regarding this legal proposition, there can be no second opinion. But in the given case the pre-detention order, presently under challenge, was originally challenged before the Calcutta High Court and all the available grounds were raised in the said petition. Though initially the Calcutta High Court was pleased to grant an interim order of stay, later on by a very detailed order, vacated the same. Subsequently, the Court dismissed the main case itself. Thus, it is not available for the petitioner now to raise the very same grounds, which were earlier raised before the Calcutta High Court. 34. But, in this case, the petitioner has not produced the final order passed by the Calcutta High Court dismissing the earlier case. The respondents have produced the order of the Calcutta High Court vacating the interim order of stay. The petitioner has also not produced the affidavit or the grounds raised in the earlier writ petition so that this Court could find whether any new ground has been raised in the present writ petition. 35. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the grounds which have come into being after the order was passed in the earlier writ petition can be raised. Regarding this legal proposition also there can be no second opinion. The learned counsel for the petitioner, across the bar, would submit that the only main ground raised in this writ petition is delay. According to him, though the petitioner was available all along, he was not detained for about 22 years. 36. In my considered opinion, this contention deserves only to be rejected. As I have already narrated, enormous steps were taken by the officials of the Directorate of Enforcement, the Tamil Nadu State Police and the Tamil Nadu Government to locate the petitioner for executing the detention order or executing the non-bailable warrant issued in the criminal case. Proclamation was also published in News Paper. But it is projected by the petitioner as though he was not aware of the detention order clamped against him. But, the fact remains that he challenged the very same detention order before the Calcutta High Court and obtained an order of Stay. Proclamation was also published in News Paper. But it is projected by the petitioner as though he was not aware of the detention order clamped against him. But, the fact remains that he challenged the very same detention order before the Calcutta High Court and obtained an order of Stay. As soon as the order of interim stay was vacated, to show his bona fides, as a responsible citizen of this Country, the petitioner ought have surrendered before the authorities concerned to undergo the detention or atleast he should have lived at the ordinary place of his residence. Instead of doing so, he shifted his place of residence to Mumbai and was absconding. The learned counsel for the respondents would point out that after coming to know that he had slipped into Mumbai, every effort was taken to secure him in Mumbai. As I have already narrated, some officials were sent to Mumbai on several occasions, but he could not be located. After proclamation order was issued by the Magistrate in connection with the criminal case, even then, he did not appear before the Court. The petitioner’s wife sent number of letters to the Hon'ble Finance Minister and other authorities and the petitioner himself had sent one letter to the Minister of State for Finance, seeking his help in respect of the detention order. All these things would go to show that the petitioner was only evading the execution of the detention order. 37. The learned counsel would rely on a judgment of a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saeed Zakir Hussain Malik Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in, wherein, the Court was pleased to set aside the detention order as there was a delay of 14 months in execution of the detention order. I have carefully gone through the said judgment. In that case, there was nothing to indicate that the petitioner was not available. On facts, the Court was satisfied that though the individual against whom the detention order had been passed was very much available, the detention order was not executed. But, in the instant case, the petitioner was not available at his ordinary place of residence and elsewhere for the authorities to execute the detention order. 38. The learned counsel for the petitioner would nextly rely on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.Mohammed Farook Vs. But, in the instant case, the petitioner was not available at his ordinary place of residence and elsewhere for the authorities to execute the detention order. 38. The learned counsel for the petitioner would nextly rely on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.Mohammed Farook Vs. Joint Secretary to Government of India reported in 2000 SCC (Crl) 411. That was a case where a delay of 40 days in execution of the detention order was taken as a ground. In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the order of detention solely on the ground that there was no report, thereby the executing authority failed to indicate the steps taken by the authorities to execute the detention order. But in this case, facts are totally distinguishable and it is not as though no steps were taken by the Department to execute the detention order. 39. The learned counsel would nextly rely on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kathija Beevi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu in H.C.P.(MD) No.111 of 2012 dated 13.07.2012. In that case, a Division Bench at the Madurai Bench of this Court was pleased to quash the detention order on the ground that there was enormous delay in the execution of the detention order. In that case, the Division Bench found that the detenue was very much available and was appearing before the Courts, with the knowledge of the department, but, the detention order passed on 28.02.2011 was executed only on 20.01.2012. But in the instant case, as I have already pointed out, the petitioner was not available for such a long time. As a matter of fact, the department was taken for a ride by the petitioner, by hiding himself and sending letter after letter to the authorities. Above all, as I have already stated, after the writ petition filed by him challenging the detention order before the Calcutta High Court was dismissed, he ought to have surrendered before the department. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is not the duty of the petitioner to surrender to the department and it is the duty of the authorities to execute the detention order. 40. In my considered opinion, it is not as though the petitioner was not challenging the order of detention elsewhere and therefore there is no need for him to surrender. 40. In my considered opinion, it is not as though the petitioner was not challenging the order of detention elsewhere and therefore there is no need for him to surrender. It is a case where the petitioner challenged the detention order before the Calcutta High Court, where he failed. Thereafter, he changed his residential address continuously and hence his whereabouts were not known. In spite of several steps taken by so many authorities including the State Government, his whereabouts could not be located. For these reasons, I hold that though there is delay in execution of the detention order, the delay was caused only by the act of the petitioner and therefore on that ground, the detention order cannot be quashed. 41. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the detention order involves the liberty of an individual as guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore the delay may not be lightly viewed. Regarding this legal proposition, I have got no quarrel. The detention order which is passed without trial has to pass the test of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The Calcutta High Court has held that it passed the test of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and other statutory provisions. Therefore, the same cannot be reopened now. The only ground raised before this Court is that there was delay, which I have already negatived. 42. In view of the above, I do not find any merit at all in this petition, the petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.