ORDER :

1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order of detention which has been passed by the detaining authority against the petitioner under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as ‘PASA’), but still not executed.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Patel for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Parikh for the respondents.

3. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner is apprehending his detention under the provisions of the PASA on account of registration of solitary offence as described in the petition. Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to the averments made in the memo of the petition and thereafter contended that on the basis of the FIR which is placed on record at page No.15 of the compilation, the respondent authority may pass the order of detention against the petitioner.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Additional Secretary to the Government of India and Others Versus Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and Another. reported in 1992 (Suppl.) (1) SCC 496, and more particularly, paragraph 30 of the said decision. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner falls under the categories stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said paragraph.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has, thereafter placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vijaysinh @ Gatti Pruthvisinh Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in 2015 (1) GLR 703 and, after referring to the said decision, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that this Court is empowered to interfere with the order of detention under certain circumstances at pre-execution stage. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner can be considered as rare or exceptional case.

6. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rekha Versus State of Tamilnadu reported in 2011 (5) SCC 244, more particularly, on paragraph 30 and Pushkar Mukherjee and Others Versus State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1970 SC 852, more particularly, paragraph 8.

7. Learned advocate for the petitioner has, therefore urged that the impugned order passed by the detaining authority be quashed and set aside.

8. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr.Chhaya appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondent-authority has already passed the order of detention on 10.2.2020 against the petitioner, however, in view of the stay granted by the Court in the present petition, the said order has not been executed. Learned AGP has referred to the said order and contended that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner and when the detaining authority, after considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and allegations levelled against the petitioner, passed the order of detention, the said order may not be interfered with at pre-execution stage. He further submitted that the present petition at pre-execution stage is not maintainable and therefore this Court may not exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned AGP, thereafter, contended that the case of the petitioner does not fall under the category of rate or exceptional case and therefore also, this Court may not exercise discretion in favour of the present petitioner. Learned AGP, therefore, urged that this petition be dismissed.

9. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the parties. I have also perused the material placed on record. While deciding the petition filed at pre-execution stage by the concerned petitioner, this Court has to consider the relevant aspects as per