Judicial review of preventive detention orders is limited to exceptional cases where the order is prima facie illegal or passed without authority.

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 non-application 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 the present applicant is falsely implicated in the offence. He has nothing to do with the offence. Learned advocate has submitted that present applicant is a senior citizen and he is having contract of door to door delivery. He has not committed any irregularity as the present applicant has subletted the contract to one Rahul and he has been arrested. It is submitted that there is no any abettment or connivance or collusion with the accused. It is submitted that the alleged key of the godown was with the third party i.e. Manager of the godown and he has misappropriated the material and siphoned away the goods. Even during the transportation whatever shortfall is noticed, the said amount is also recovered during the each trip. It is submitted that the allegation levelled against the present applicant is only that he was in contact with one Asvin and Asvin has siphoned away the stock. It is further submitted that nothing is required to be recovered and discovered from the accused. It is further submitted that as such there is no breach of public order or law and order. It is submitted that the registration of FIR doesn’t in any way affect the tempo of the society, causing threat to the very existence of the normal routine life of the people. It is therefore submitted that bases on such material if the order of detention is passed, the same is liable to be interfered with.

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 it is found and verified during the time of the raid as well as the statements that the petitioner has conducted the serious misconduct in connivance with the manager, contractor, supervisor and other accused persons. During investigation, it was also found that there is deficiency of more than 1000 bags of food grains during the subsistence of the petitioner’s contract. He also submitted that the order of detention is not executed and the petitioner has not surrendered to the