Point of Law: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at pre-execution stage is though maintainable, the scope of interference is very limited.

JUDGMENT :

1. All these petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the concerned petitioners have prayed that the order of preventive detention which is likely to be passed against concerned petitioner be quashed and set aside at pre-execution stage.

2. Looking to the issue involved in the present petitions, all these petitions are heard together and decided by this common judgment.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Sandip M Patel for the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 4933 of 2021, 8628 of 2021 and 9974 of 2021 and learned advocate Mr.Sanjay Prajapati for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2924 of 2020 and learned AGP Ms.Jyoti Bhatt for the respondent-authorities. For the sake of convenience, the facts narrated in the petition being Special Civil Application No.8628 of 2021 are considered.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in nine cases for the offences which are punishable under the Prohibition Act on the basis of the FIRs which have been filed before the concerned police stations. Learned advocate Mr.Patel has referred to the averments made in para no.3.2 of the petition. Mainly, it has been contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in all the aforesaid cases. The petitioner was not present at the place of incident and the muddammal liquor was seized from the other co-accused. It is submitted that in some of the cases during the course of investigation, even after a period of approximately one year, on the basis of the statement of co-accused, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Learned advocate has referred the details given in the aforesaid paragraph in support of his contention.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Patel, thereafter, submitted that the respondent Commissioner of Police i.e. respondent no.2 herein has, vide communication dated 5.6.2021, directed the police inspectors of the concerned police stations that the investigation of six FIRs, details of which have been given in the said communication, be transferred to Police Inspector, Meghaninagar police station, copy of the said communication is placed on record at page no.57. Thus, it is contended that now the investigation of all the aforesaid six cases has been transferred to Meghaninagar police station. At this stage, it is contended that the respondent no.2 is the detaining authority and the petitioner is having reasonable apprehension that the order of detention will be passed against the petitioner on the basis of the FIRs, the details of which have been given in para 3.2 of the memo of the petition. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred the present petition at this stage before the order of detention is passed against the petitioner.

4.2 Learned advocate Mr.Patel has supplied separate paper book containing various decisions rendered by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned advocate has first of all referred to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Additional Secretary to the Government of India Vs. Alka Gadia reported in 1992 (Supp) SCC 596, copy of which is placed at page no.31 of the paper book. After referring to the relevant paragraph of the said decision, learned advocate has submitted that the case of the petitioner falls under Ground no.III and IV of the paragraph 29 of the said decision.

4.3 It is submitted at this stage that this Court is having power to entertain the petition at pre-execution stage under five circumstances which are narrated in the said decision. Ground No.III provides that if the order of detention is passed for a wrong purpose, the same can be interfered with. Similarly, ground IV provides that if the order of detention is passed on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds, the High Court is empowered to interfere with such type of order of detention passed by the concerned detaining authority.

4.4 Learned advocate Mr.Pa