On September 29, 1969, the State of North Carolina filed an application for requisi*122tion of plaintiff as a fugitive from justice pursuant to the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, MCLA § 780.1, et seq. (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1285[1], et seq.), (hereinafter cited as the Uniform Act). Upon the request of the Governor of Michigan, the state Attorney General conducted an investigation. MCLA § 780.4 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1285[4]). The Governor, after due consideration of the matter, issued a governor’s warrant for plaintiff’s arrest. On the day that plaintiff was to be served with the arrest warrant and taken into custody, plaintiff instituted this action for a declaratory judgment decreeing that his extradition to North Carolina was illegal.1 The trial court granted temporary restraining orders and temporary injunctions enjoining defendants from progressing with plaintiff’s extradition pending final adjudication of the merits of plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of the proceedings. The trial court later dismissed the action and dissolved the outstanding injunctions. From this, plaintiff appeals to this Court.

The Uniform Act sets forth judicial relief from an arrest pursuant to an invalid extradition by way of a writ of habeas corpus2 An older statute, not *123part of the Uniform Act, indicates that the legality of an arrest under the governor’s extradition warrant may be tested by means other than by writ of habeas corpus.3 In any event, although both statutes recognize a remedy after arrest, neither provide for relief prior to the arrest.

Defendant contends that an extraditee may, in addition to applying for a writ of habeas corpus after his arrest, seek a declaratory judgment challenging the extradition proceedings prior to his arrest.4 Even assuming arguendo that declaratory *124relief may properly be sought under these circumstances, it is clear that the granting of such relief is grounded within the sound discretion of the trial court. OCR 1963, 521.1; Molinaro v. Driver (1961), 364 Mich 341, 354; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Kenosha Investment Company (1963), 369 Mich 481. The trial court believed that any inquiry into the validity of plaintiff’s extradition prior to arrest would not be any more protective of his rights than the traditional method of inquiry in habeas corpus proceedings, and that plaintiff would suffer no irreparable harm by a denial of declaratory relief since he would be immediately entitled to apply for a writ of habeas corpus upon being taken into custody. Moreover, the trial court was of the opinion that, by further entertaining' declaratory relief, unnecessary delay in extraditing plaintiff would result and that the best interests of plaintiff would be served by speedy resolution of the extradition proceedings. Under these circumstances, we are unable to find an abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff his declaratory relief.5

Affirmed.

(concurring). While I have signed Chief Judge Lesinski’s opinion, I think it necessary to write separately to make clear that our decision today should not be read as barring an action for a declaratory judgment by a person claimed by a demanding state to be a fugitive from justice.1 If *125a person charged with being a fugitive can make a showing of substantive grounds entitling him to relief from a requisition issued by the governor of the demanding state and that more complete and adequate relief is obtainable through a declaratory judgment than by habeas corpus or that, for other reasons, declaratory relief is appropriate, then he would be entitled to the entry of a declaratory judgment in his favor and the matter would no longer reside in the trial judge’s discretion.

The crux of the matter is whether a person charged with being a fugitive may properly contest a demanding state’s requisition by raising substantive issues other than the traditional issues of identity, fugitivity, substantiality of the indictment and regularity of the extradition procedure.2

I agree with Judge Lesinski when he says that, “It is doubtful whether the scope of review is any broader when the action is one for a declaratory judgment” than in habeas corpus. But, while it is doubtful, it is not yet incontrovertible. It may well be that the time has come to recognize new substantive grounds of attack.3

Habeas corpus is, indeed, the Great Writ, but all forms and processes tend to take on a structure of *126their own.4 Perhaps the law should grow in this area and in order to accomplish growth it may be necessary to break out of traditional forms, to leave the mansion house of habeas corpus for the uncharted fields of declaratory judgment or some other procedural device or remedy.

The two questions, whether additional substantive issues should be recognized and, if so, the means of providing relief are tried together. No doubt, decision on the substantive question will carry with it decision on the procedural question. A court is not likely to recognize a substantive right and deny relief because it is at a loss to find a proper procedural device to implement the right.

The parties have argued the question of whether the plaintiff, Williams, is entitled to a declaratory judgment as an abstract question unrelated to the pivotal question of whether substantive issues other than the traditional ones of identity, fugitivity, substantiality, and regularity should be recognized. Our decision will not end Williams’ attack on North Carolina’s requisition. No doubt, an application for a writ of habeas corpus will be filed in his behalf. I see no reason why as an alternative prayer Williams, despite our decision today, could not ask for declaratory relief as well as the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.5 We decide only that Williams has not yet demonstrated that he is entitled to declaratory relief and, more specifically, we decide only that he has failed to demonstrate that he has *127a substantive right to relief unobtainable through the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and that, therefore, he needs declaratory relief or, for other reasons, declaratory relief is appropriate.6