JUDGMENT : [1.0.] The petitioner by way of this petition is seeking writ, order or direction directing the respondent authority to place on record the order of preventive detention passed against him under the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the PASA Act”) and further quashing and setting aside the same at pre-execution stage as being illegal, invalid, null and void, arbitrary, suffers from non application of mind and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. [2.0.] Mr. H.R.Prajapati, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner apprehends his preventive detention order as he is involved in a solitary offence being C.R.No.11184002200788 of 2020 registered with Chhotaudepur Police Station, Dist : Chhotaudepur for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 186, 323, 332, 341, 353, 379, 392, 143, 147, 149, 504, 506(2) and 395 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Rule 3 of the Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 and only role assigned to him is not for assaulting the Mines Supervisor but when he went to the Hospital for the purpose of treatment, he threatened him to settle the case filed by him against the accused or else to face a case under the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Atrocities Act”). [3.0.] It is further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any illegal mining activity. The only role assigned to him is that of threatening the complainant to arrive at a settlement in the case filed at his instance or else he is to be involved in the offence of “Atrocities Act”. It is further submitted that since there is a solitary offence registered against the petitioner, he does not satisfy the definition of “dangerous person” as described under Section 2(c) of the PASA Act. For the same, according to the submission, one has to commit offence falling under Chapter-XVI and XVII of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) or under Chapter-V of the Arms Act, that too, habitually. Since there is only single case registered against him, it is submitted that he cannot be said to have committed offence habitually, and therefore, he cannot be even branded as dangerous person, and therefore, no order of preventive detention can be passed against the petitioner. Since there is only single case registered against him, it is submitted that he cannot be said to have committed offence habitually, and therefore, he cannot be even branded as dangerous person, and therefore, no order of preventive detention can be passed against the petitioner. [4.0.] In support of aforesaid submissions, relying on a decision in the case of Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh Versus M.M.Mehta, Commissioner of Police reported in 1995 (3) SCC 237 , more particularly para-8, he submitted that the expression 'habitually' to mean repeatedly or persistently and it implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts and that repeated, persistent and similar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit. [5.0.] Relying on a decision in the case of Vijaysinh @ Gatti Pruthvisinh Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., reported in 2015 (1) GLR 703 of the full Bench of this Court, it is submitted that though the Court is not obliged and/or bound to call for the original file, order of detention and the ground of detention to satisfy itself whether the order of detention is sustainable or not, however, in an appropriate case made out on the basis of averments on affidavit and on the ground set out in the memo of petition, the Court can in its discretion/have jurisdiction to call for the original file, order of detention and ground of detention so as to satisfy itself the challenge to the order of detention at pre-execution stage. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a law student and is also a Journalist associated with local newspaper “Visfotak” and working as a Chief Reporter. Thus, it is submitted that he is doing social work and earned good reputation in the area, and therefore, his activity cannot be said to be illegal compelling the authority to pass an order of preventive detention against him. [6.0.] It is further submitted that the petitioner has learnt that on a proposal moved by the respondent No.3 – Police Inspector, Chhotaudepur Police Station, a preventive detention order has come to be passed by respondent No.2 herein in the month of July, 2020. [6.0.] It is further submitted that the petitioner has learnt that on a proposal moved by the respondent No.3 – Police Inspector, Chhotaudepur Police Station, a preventive detention order has come to be passed by respondent No.2 herein in the month of July, 2020. It is further averred in the petition that it has been learnt that the order of detention has been approved by the State Government and the petitioner is ordered to be kept at Surat Jail in pursuance to the order of preventive detention. Based on such averments made by the petitioner, it is submitted that the respondents be directed to produce the order of preventive detention passed against the petitioner and asked them to justify the said order on the grounds mentioned in it. It is further submitted that in connection with the very offence, this Court had already granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 21.08.2020. Not only that, the petitioner has also filed a quashing petition before this Court, and therefore, this Court may entertain the petition filed by the petitioner apprehending his preventive detention order against him at pre-execution stage. No other contentions raised or precedents relied on and produced. [7.0.] As against that, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP, has submitted that since the petitioner has not made out any case for entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has not produced any preventive detention order, it may not be entertained, more particularly, when he has not surrendered to the custody pursuant to a preventive detention order, if at all, it is passed, as claimed in the petition. Relying on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mukeshbhai Versibhai Desai Through his Brother Bharatbhai Versibhai Desai Versus State of Gujarat, rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.108 of 2020, he has submitted that since the petitioner has failed to make out a case that it falls within the criterias set out in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Additional Secretary to the Government of India and Ors. Versus Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and Anr., reported in 1992 supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 496, a petition, that too, at pre-execution stage may not be entertained. [8.0.] At the outset, it would be relevant to refer the assertions made in the petition by the petitioner himself. Versus Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and Anr., reported in 1992 supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 496, a petition, that too, at pre-execution stage may not be entertained. [8.0.] At the outset, it would be relevant to refer the assertions made in the petition by the petitioner himself. As averred in para-3.1 of the petition, the petitioner is a student studying in 4th Semester of law. Over and above, he being a journalist and running a local newspaper in the area. Though he claims to be social worker and has earned good reputation, the averment made in later part of para-3.2 of the petition discloses that the aforesaid offence is not the solitary offence the petitioner has committed. In the year 2019 also there was one case filed against him under the provisions of the “Atrocities Act”. The said assertion also appears to be very guardedly made, but he may have the criminal antecedents. When the learned advocate for the petitioner was asked to explain about the relationship of the present petitioner with the other co-accused, who are found to have committed offence of illegal mining, it is disclosed that they are brothers. The activity of the present petitioner as so-called social worker running a local newspaper appears to threaten and deter the public officers, who are performing their duties to protect the national wealth, which is being misappropriated and converted for their own use by miscreants. The activity of the illegal mining in the State is rampant. The activity of the petitioner from the registered case is not of an innocent person but it is with a view to deter the public servant, who is protecting the national wealth like mines and mineral, to dissuade him from taking any action against illegal miners, who are brothers of the petitioner. [9.0.] The contention with regard to petitioner not satisfying the definition of dangerous person as he cannot be said to have committed habitually the offence under chapter-XVI and XVII of IPC, is required to be rejected outright. According to the assertion made in the petition, the offence referred hereinabove is not the only offence committed by the petitioner, over and above that, there is other offence committed by him in the year 2019. According to the assertion made in the petition, the offence referred hereinabove is not the only offence committed by the petitioner, over and above that, there is other offence committed by him in the year 2019. Though the petitioner has not clearly mentioned whether the said offence pertains to only offence filed against him under the provisions of Atrocities act or any other sections of IPC, still however, fact remains that he is in habit of committing the offences. Though the assertion made in the petition very guardedly that in the year 2018 no offence registered against the petitioner, however, there is no assertion made in the petition that he does not have any criminal antecedents except those two cases mentioned in it. [10.0.] The test to verify whether the petitioner has habitually committed any offence is not limited to registered cases only, there may be certain offence committed by him where victim may not have courage to file any complaint/FIR against the petitioner, considering his dominant status. There may be other material placed before the competent authority, on the basis of which, it may be subjectively satisfied that the person is committing the offence habitually on the basis of registered cases as also un-registered cases, too. Therefore, the reliance placed on the decision in the case of Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh (Supra) is out of context and cannot be relied on. [11.0.] At any rate, the petitioner, who is a journalist and Chief Reporter of a Local Newspaper carrying on his further study in law, is not expected to threaten the mining supervisor, who is trying to prevent illegal mining by the brothers of the petitioner. His such action cannot be considered so lightly. The detaining authority, if at all, proposes to pass the detention order, is expected to be subjectively satisfied considering the activities of the petitioner and not the probative value of the material placed before it. The petitioner cannot be permitted to use his elevated status of a journalist, under the guise of which, committing certain offence through other persons and if any public servant dares to file a complaint, threatened him involving in a case under the “Atrocities Act”. The said action speaks about his clandestine activities of committing offences habitually. The petitioner cannot be permitted to use his elevated status of a journalist, under the guise of which, committing certain offence through other persons and if any public servant dares to file a complaint, threatened him involving in a case under the “Atrocities Act”. The said action speaks about his clandestine activities of committing offences habitually. Therefore, the petition at the instance of such petitioner, that too, before the order executed upon him, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained. [12.0.] At the same time, if the petitioner knew that in the month of July, as claimed in petition, an order of preventive detention has come to be passed, no petition, that too, at pre-execution stage is ever filed, prior to he moved anticipatory bail application into the reported case and granted by the High Court. Considering the activities carried on by the petitioner, who is also pursuing his study in law, something more is expected from him, when his brothers carried on illegal mining, even being journalist not to threaten public servant, who is performing his duty prosecuting offender of illegal mining, who happens to be the brothers of the petitioner. [13.0.] Since the petitioner has failed to establish that his case falls within four corners of a decision in the case of Alka Gadia (Supra), this petition at pre-execution stage cannot be entertained. The petitioner has failed to make out that his case falls within any of the categories of exceptional case, and therefore, this petition cannot be entertained, that too, at pre-execution stage. Even if the petitioner has a valid ground to challenge the detention order itself, unless the order of detention is executed upon the petitioner and he challenges the said detention order thereafter on available grounds, this petition cannot be entertained. Thus, petition fails and it is hereby rejected. Petition dismissed.