VIPUL VASRAMBHAI RABARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner against the apprehended action of detention of this petitioner in connection with one solitary offence, registered before Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad, being C.R. No. 11191038200245, for the offences punishable under Sections 65(a) (e), 116(B), 81 and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act and by raising such apprehension, present petition is brought before this Court at pre- execution stage and thereby, invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is earning his livelihood by doing his business of Animal Husbandry and is a law abiding citizen and is having a Milk Parlor with 30 buffalo and having no criminal antecedent. It has been submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in commission of the solitary offence of prohibition, which is registered before Vatva Police Station and is seriously apprehending that he will be detained in connection with such offence and as such, by making averment in the petition that apprehended detention order is already passed against the petitioner and hence, requested to grant urgent protection. For the purpose of seeking relief as prayed for in the petition, multiple contentions are tried to be raised by learned advocate and it is said that the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence. At one point of time, the petitioner had purchased the vehicle in question from one Mr. Patel and the same was sold by him to one Mr. Gadhavi and on account of this fact only, he could not have been arraigned in the prosecution and based upon such assertion on oath made by the petitioner, a request is made to grant the relief as prayed for in the petition.

(3.) As against the aforesaid submissions, learned AGP Mr. Bhargav Pandya on instruction has submitted that the instruction from the office is that till date, no order of detention is passed and as such, the apprehension which has been voiced out by the petitioner is ill-founded. Apart from that, Mr. Pandya has also submitted that at this stage, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner is an innocent person and just on the basis of vague averments which are mentioned in para 3.1, precisely on page 4 of the petition, Mr. Pandya has submitted that when that car was purchased by the petitioner, no details are provided from whom he purchased the car and only one Mr. Patel's name is mentioned without his full description and further he had sold the vehicle to one Mr. Gadhavi, and again there was no detail provided. Therefore, on the basis of vague assertion in the petition, to grant the relief in extraordinary jurisdiction may be unwarranted. Mr. Pandya has vehemently opposed to entertain the petition. Mr. Pandya has further submitted that in rarest of rare case, at this stage of proceedings, petition can be entertained, otherwise the law is abundantly clear as to under which circumstance, petition is to be entertained at pre-execution stage. For that aspect, Mr. Pandya has placed reliance upon the decision taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 9.1.2020 in Special Civil Application No.17158 of 2019 and has further conveyed that this decision of learned Single Judge is recently confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 18.6.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.108 of 2020. Mr. Pandya has further submitted that, detailed judgment has been passed by the Division Bench in which it has been clearly propounded that in a routine manner, petitions at pre-execution stage cannot be entertained and has also submitted that no circumstance, sufficient enough to justify the apprehension, is stated by the petitioner. Hence, the petition being devoid of merit, may be dismissed.