Preventive detention orders cannot be challenged before execution unless exceptional circumstances arise; individual liberty must be delicately balanced against public safety.

JUDGMENT :

SAMIR J. DAVE, J.

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

“(a) To allow the present petition;

(b) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the detention order passed by the respondent no.2 herein on the strength of FIR (Annexure-A) being C.R. No.11218015230021 of 2023 registered with Ranavav Police Station, District Porbandar under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980;

(c) Pending the admission, final hearing and disposal of the present Special Civil Application, to stay execution of the detention order passed by the respondent no.2 herein on the strength of FIR (Annexure-A) being CR No.11218015230021 of 2023 registered with Ranavav Police Station, District Porbandar;

(d) Pending the admission, final hearing and disposal of the present Special Civil Application, to direct the concerned respondents to produce the detention order alongwith the grounds of detention passed against the petitioner on the strength of FIR (Annexure-A) being CR No.11218015230021 of 2023 registered with Ranavav Police Station, District Porbandar before this Hon’ble Court for its kind perusal;

(e) 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 argued that there is no objective material on the basis of which detaining authority can ever reach to a subjective satisfaction that the detention order is necessary against the present petitioner. It is further submitted that the contract of the petitioner already got over in the year 2021. there is minor short-fall which has been deducted from the bill amount of the present petitioner which was lying as deposit with the authority. This Hon’ble Court after considering the role of the petitioner has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner having found that the petitioner is not involved in actual siphoning away of the material.

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 order passed by the authority and as such no right much less fundamental right of the petitioner is violated by the respondent authorities and hence, as per the settled legal position of law, the petitioner is required to surrender first before challenging the order of detention, which is not even serve