A detenu cannot challenge a preventive detention order before execution unless exceptional circumstances exist, emphasizing the balance between individual liberty and state interests.

JUDGMENT :

SAMIR J. DAVE, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following reliefs:

“(a) That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application;

(b) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this present Special Civil application by calling for record and proceedings from the office of respondent nos.2 and 3 with regard to purpose order of detention passed by the detaining authority in connection with FIR No.11218015230021 of 2023 registered with Ranavav Police Station, Porbandar, and also be pleased to quash the same as being illegal, invalid, null and void, arbitrary, suffers from nonapplication of mind without jurisdiction and competence, suffering from mala-fides and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

(c) Pending the admission, hearing and till final disposal of this Special Civil Application the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents and/or their agents, servants, persons employees etc., not to implement or effect execution of order of detention to the petitioner in any manner in connection with FIR No.11218015230021 of 2023 registered with Ranavav Police Station, Porbandar at Annexure-A in the interest of justice;

(d) xxx.. xxx… xxx;”

2. The challenge is to the order of detention at pre-execution stage that the respondent No.2– detaining authority viz. the District Magistrate, Porbandar, in exercise of powers under the provisions of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short “the Act”) and will detain the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner seriously apprehend about execution of order of detention against the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid offence registered and in fact the order of detention is already been passed against the co-accused viz. Keval Sureshbhai Bhundiya and even at the residence of the petitioner also office, police came and inquired about the petitioner, however, as the petitioner was not present, he is not being detained. It is submitted that the present petitioner is doing lawful business in the name and style as Raviraj Enterprise where he is proprietor, the office is situated at Main Bazaar, Nr. Bank of Baroda, Bhatiya Devbhumi Dwarka, also having GST registration. He also submitted that petitioner would be seriously prejudice, therefore, humbly urges the Hon’ble Court to direct the respondent to submit on record about status of the petitioner in respect of FIR. He also submitted that mere involvement by police in an offence cannot be considered to be affecting the public order without any credible and cogent material on record, therefore, any action of passing order of detention by respondent no.2 is required to be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Nenavath Bujji Etc. Vs. The State of Telangana and Ors., passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.1739 to 1739 of 2024 and also relied upon another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., reported in (2008) 16 SCC 14.

5. As against that, learned AGP has opposed the grant of petition by submitting that perusing the FIR registered with Ranavav Police Station, Porbandar, the offence has been committed from the year 2020 to 2023 up to the date of 04.01.2023. The petitioner herein is businessman and proprietor of the Raviraj Enterprise, the present petitioner used to transfer the government food grains on large scale. It is further alleged that the petitioner in this case transformed government-owned brands into facilities for private limited companies in collaboration with the other co-accused individuals named in the FIR. Additionally, it has been uncovered during the investigation that the petitioner unlawfully sold the stored food grains for personal financial gain. Moreover, it has been discovered that the petit