Mohammad Salim Mohammad Ismail v. State of Maharashtra) & Ors.

they 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; 931-WP-638-2025 3 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. 6] Thus, there is extremely limited scope to interfere with the detention order at pre-execution stage, viz., only where glaring illegality is found. 7] In the present case, the petitioner is evading service of order. The order of detention doesn’t fall in the category mentioned above. 8] That being so, merely because the Division Bench of this Court has held that the detention order could be questioned at pre-execution stage by itself will not be a ground to set aside the order of detention. 9] Thus, we do not find merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Sumit