M.R. SHAH, J.

1. All these petitions are placed before the Larger Bench pursuant to the order dated 17.09.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge directing to refer the matter to the Larger Bench having observed and found that there are diverse judgments by the different Division Benches of this Court i.e. in the case of Mancharam Samaram Meena v. State of Gujarat & Ors. Reported in 2013(2) GLH 128 and another decision dated 23.12.2013 of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chirag @ Vijay Bhikhubhai Chtrabhuj v. State of Gujarat & 2 Ors. Rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1195/2013.

1.1 At the outset it is required to be noted that as such the learned Single Judge in referring order has observed that there are divergent judgments/views by different Division Benches of this Court in the aforesaid decisions with respect to the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the preexecution stage. There are some observations made by the learned Single Judge on the divergent views by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mancharam Samaram Meena (Supra) and Chirag @ Vijay Bhikhubhai Chtrabhuj (Supra) on the issue that while considering the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the detenu at the preexecution stage whether it is bounden duty of the Court to call for the order of detention for its own perusal to satisfy itself as to the validity of the detention order and whether in all cases the Court is required to call for the detention order and grounds for detention for its own perusal and to independently decide whether it is a fit case to quash the detention order at a preexecution stage or not?

2. In the case of Mancharam Samaram Meena (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court has observed and held that the learned Single Judge while considering the petition challenging the order of detention on preexecution stage is not required to call for the relevant files and the grounds of detention to satisfy at the preexecution stage that the order of detention is sustainable or not and it is further observed and held that such an exercise is wholly impermissible and beyond the jurisdiction of High Court at preexecution stage. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case has dismissed the petition challenging the order of detention at preexecution stage in absence of the order of detention and the grounds of detention by further observing that the detenu at that stage has no right to call upon the State to produce the same.

2.1 However, in the subsequent decision, another Division Bench in the case of Chirag @ Vijay Bhikhubhai Chtrabhuj (Supra) has taken a contrary view and it is observed and held that it is bounden duty of the Court to call for the order of detention for its own perusal to satisfy itself as to the validity of the detention order. The Division Bench in the subsequent decision by remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge has directed to decide the petition afresh after calling for the detention order and grounds for detention for its own perusal and to independently decide whether it is a fit case to quash the detention order at preexecution stage or not. Thus, considering the aforesaid two decisions of two Division Benches of this Court, conflict in both the decisions seem to be whether at preexecution stage when the order of detention is challenged, the Court is bound/obliged to call for the record and the order of detention and the grounds of detention to satisfy itself at preexecution stage so as to satisfy itself as to the validity of the detention order and to independently decide whether this is a fit case to quash the detention order at a preexecution stage or not.

3. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties have also submitted that there are divergent views by two Division Benches of this Court in the aforesaid two decisions on the aforesaid issue. Under the circumstances, we are required to consider th