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, if any 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’), at pre-execution stage.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mohit Pathak for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Dhawan Jayswal for the respondents.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner referred to the averments made in the memo of the petition and thereafter contended that two FIRs have been registered against the petitioner before Mahesaha Taluka police station for the alleged offences punishable under the Prohibition Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is having apprehension that on the basis of the said FIRs, the respondent-detaining authority has passed order of detention against the petitioner and therefore the present petition at pre- execution stage be entertained.

4. It is further submitted that this Court has passed an interim order on 18.2.2021, whereby this Court has granted protection to the petitioner while issuing notice for final disposal.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision 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.

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

9. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that now the respondent-state has filed affidavit and placed on record the order of detention dated 1.12.2020 passed against the petitioner relying upon the said two FIRs. At this stage, it is also pointed out that co-accused/co-detenu filed Special Civil Application No.16277 of 2020 before this Court in which the said co-accused challeged the order of detention passed by the respondent-detaining authority and coordinate bench of this Court, vide order dated 3.2.2021, allowed the said petition and thereby quashed and set aside the order of detention passed against the said co-accused. It is, therefore, urged that the present petition at pre-execution stage be allowed.

10. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr.Mehta has referred to the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent detaining authority. Learned AGP has also referred the order of detention dated 1.12.2020 passed by the detaining authority against the present petitioner and thereafter contended that the detaining authority has considered the relevant material which was placed before it and thereafter the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on 1.12.2020. He submitted that the case of the petitioner does not fall under the category of rare or exceptional case and therefore this Court may not quash and set aside the order of detention at pre-exe