KARANSINH TEJSINH RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India apprehending his preventive detention pursuant to the cases registered against him. However, as recorded in the order dtd. 25/10/2021, when a statement was made that the detaining authority has not received any proposal from the sponsoring authority for passing an order of detention against the petitioner, as on that date, the petition came to be withdrawn. However, Miscellaneous Civil Application (for restoration) No.1 of 2021 in the present Special Civil Application came to be filed and vide order dtd. 14/12/2021, this Court allowed the same and restored the present Special Civil Application to its original file, which was granted vide order dtd. 25/10/2021 also. However, as recorded in the order dtd. 14/3/2022, draft amendment came to be filed by the petitioner, which is granted and carried out also.

(2.) Mr. Nisarg Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that so far as other four co-accused cases are concerned, three of the co-accused were detained pursuant to a preventive detention order wherein the advisory Board in case of one of the co-accused recommended revocation of the order, in case of another co-accused State Government revoked the order and in the case of third accused, this Court quashed the order of detention made against him. It is further submitted that in the case of fourth co-accused, since there was no proposal, this petition came to be disposed of on that ground. Therefore, it is submitted that the manner in which the detaining authority has passed an order, this petition filed at pre-execution stage apprehending his preventive detention be entertained. It is further submitted that he is not sure of whether any preventive detention order is passed or not and on the contrary, it is submitted that no detention order as such is passed against the petitioner.

(3.) The evidentiary value of the material placed before the detaining authority, either it may be in the form of the statement of the accused or co-accused, cannot be gone into even by the detaining authority. There is no reason to examine the same while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that too, at not only pre- execution stage but may be at pre proposal stage. The fact remains that according to the petitioner himself probably no order of detention is yet passed. Even if it is passed, it is not placed on record by him, and therefore, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of the present petitioner, who is having criminal antecedents, also cannot be exercised. As such a detenue cannot ordinarily seek a writ of mandamus if he does not surrender and is not served with an order of detention and the grounds in support of such order