ORDER : 1. In this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the impugned order, which has been passed against the petitioner, be quashed and set aside at pre-execution stage. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sanjay Prajapati appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Meet Thakkar appearing for the respondents. 3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that an FIR is filed against the petitioner on 14.10.2020, a copy of which is placed on record and, therefore, it is the apprehension of the petitioner that he will be detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (‘PASA’ for short). It is further submitted that the preventive action under Section 110(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has also been taken against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is having reasonable apprehension that the order of detention will be passed against him and he will be detained. The petitioner therefore filed the present petition at pre-execution stage. 3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner, therefore, urged that the order of detention passed against the petitioner be quashed and set aside at pre-execution stage. 3.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following decisions: (1) Piyush Kantilal vs. Police Commissioner, AIR 1989 SC 491 (2) Deepak Bajaj vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (1) GLH 140 (3) Additional Secretary to the Government of India and Others vs. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and Another, 1992 (Supp) 1 SCC 496 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Meet Thakkar appearing for the respondents submitted that there is no averment made by the petitioner in the memo of the petition that the order of detention has been passed against him. It is only stated that one Police Officer came to his residence and informed his family members that the order of detention has been passed against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is having reasonable apprehension that he will be detained under PASA. The petitioner has not given any details with regard to the so-called order of detention, which is alleged to have been passed by the concerned respondent authority and merely on apprehension, the present petition is filed. The petitioner has not given any details with regard to the so-called order of detention, which is alleged to have been passed by the concerned respondent authority and merely on apprehension, the present petition is filed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also failed to make out any case for interference at this stage and, therefore, this Court may not entertain the present petition. 4.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance upon the following orders passed by this Court: (1) Firojkhan alias Vagh Bharatsinh Raj vs. State of Gujarat, Order dated 23.09.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No. 11563 of 2020. (2) Rameshbhai Devjibhai Vasava through his father Devajibhai Punabhai Vasava, Order dated 11.08.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No. 9008 of 2020. (3) Ramju Rafikbhai Daireya through Uncle Gaffarbhai Abdulbhai Ganchi (Daireya), Order dated 09.06.2020 passed in Special Civil Application Nos. 7249 and 7260 of 2020. (4) Vijaysinh @ Gatti Pruthvisinh Rathod vs. State of Gujarat and Another, Order dated 03.12.2014 passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5664 of 2014 and allied matter. (5) Mukeshbhai Versibhai Desai through his brother Bharatbhai Versibhai Desai, Order dated 09.01.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No. 17158 of 2019. (6) Dharmendra @ Dhamo @ Milan Raichandbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, Order dated 26.10.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No. 12670 of 2020. At this stage, it is submitted that the order dated 26.10.2020 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 12670 of 2020 was challenged by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 846 of 2020 and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.11.2020 rejected the said appeal. 5. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it has emerged that the petitioner stated in the memo of petition that “Police visited the House of the petitioner and threaten the family member of the petitioner that the order of detention has been passed and petitioner has reasonable fear to detain under the PASA.” Thus, on the basis of the said averments made in the petition, the petitioner has shown apprehension that he will be detained in PASA. 6. At this stage, the orders passed by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court in similar type of matters are required to be kept in view. 6. At this stage, the orders passed by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court in similar type of matters are required to be kept in view. In paragraph-3 of the order dated 23.09.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No. 11563 of 2020, it has been observed as under: “3. It can thus be seen from the averments in the petition that the petitioner; except referring to the background of the cases and apprehension as indicated above, no averments are made as to how the detention order would fall under the zone of interference as indicated in Special Civil Application No. 19009 of 2019 with Special Civil Application No. 18834 of 2019 with Special Civil Application No. 19010 of 2019. Assuming that the apprehension of the petitioner is well founded; that is not all the requirement of law for challenge to the order of detention at a pre-execution stage. It is settled legal position that the court would be slow to interfere in the order of detention at a pre-execution stage, the parameters for such interference are indicated in Mukeshbhai Versibhai Desai through his brother Bharatbhai Versibhai vs. State of Gujarat in Piyush @ Lakahn Manojbhai Bhavsar vs. Police Commissioner and Others in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1281 of 2018 decided on 08.10.2018, in Additional Secretary to the Government of India and Others vs. Smt. Alka Subhash Ghadia and Another, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 496 as also the decision rendered by this court in Special Civil Application No. 7755 of 2020 and allied matters decided on 26.06.2020 in the case of Khalilahmed Abdul Hamid Ansari, no such case is made out in the petition. As pointed out by this court on 01.09.2020 in Dilipbhai Bharatbhai Dhadhal vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 19009 of 2019 with Special Civil Application No. 18834 of 2019 with Special Civil Application No. 19010 of 2019, the court would proceed with the presumption that the authority vested in the detaining authority would be exercised for a germane cause and in public interest. There cannot be a presumption to the contrary and therefore, unless a strong case for interference is made out at pre-execution stage, the interference would be unwarranted at that stage.” 7. In the order dated 09.06.2020 passed in Special Civil Application Nos. 7249 and 7260 of 2020, this Court has observed in Paragraph-10 as under: “10. There cannot be a presumption to the contrary and therefore, unless a strong case for interference is made out at pre-execution stage, the interference would be unwarranted at that stage.” 7. In the order dated 09.06.2020 passed in Special Civil Application Nos. 7249 and 7260 of 2020, this Court has observed in Paragraph-10 as under: “10. In view of the above settled legal position, the petitions cannot be entertained though they are maintainable, more particularly, at pre-execution stage and when there is no strong apprehension shown by the petitioners except that the detention order is passed against the co-accused person. As noted above in the judgments of this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Court is not required to go into the grounds which may be considered by the detaining authority for the purpose of passing of the detention order at the pre-execution stage.” 8. In the order dated 11.08.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No. 9008 of 2020, it has been observed in Paragraph-6 as under: “6. The question of entertaining a pre-detention petition, therefore, is completely a discretion that the court will exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The tenor of the petitions that are filed in the Court indicate that the burden shifted on the Court to inquire into from the respondent detaining authorities as to whether there is a case for the detaining authorities as to whether there is a case for the detaining authority to pass an order of detention, the Courts cannot be made substitutes of detaining to inquire into the mind of the detaining authority to suggests whether the detention orders are necessary to be passed.” 9. In order dated 09.01.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No. 17158 of 2019, this court has observed in Paragraphs-7 to 10 as under: “7. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner as also the precedents cited at the bar, it is clear that petition at pre-execution stage is maintainable. However, not a single precedent cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner says that in each case the petition at pre-execution stage be entertained. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner as also the precedents cited at the bar, it is clear that petition at pre-execution stage is maintainable. However, not a single precedent cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner says that in each case the petition at pre-execution stage be entertained. Though considering the right to liberty protected by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India by catena of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court says that the powers under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India are wide, and are un-trammelled by any external restrictions, and can reach any executive order resulting in civil or criminal consequences. However, the Courts have over the years evolved certain self-restraints for exercising these powers. 8. Considering the continuous unabated criminal activities carried on by the petitioner, though on several occasions as contended by Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner, the authority had come out with no proposal to preventively detain him, petitions were disposed of, It did not deter the petitioner from further carrying it throughout, 6 more cases registered in the year 2019 before different Police stations. It is very clear that his area of operation is not limited to a particular Police Station. Therefore, it is not a pure and simple property dispute reflected from the FIRs in between private parties as sought to be contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner. On the contrary, the cases registered against the present petitioner pertains to not only the offences affecting the human body but also an offence of criminal trespass entering upon land of private individual. Five cases wherein, complaints have been quashed as contended by Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner, is out of settlement in between the parties and not on merit. Therefore, the activity of the petitioner cannot be said to be only a problem of law and order situation but it may potentially affect the public order too. 9. Five cases wherein, complaints have been quashed as contended by Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner, is out of settlement in between the parties and not on merit. Therefore, the activity of the petitioner cannot be said to be only a problem of law and order situation but it may potentially affect the public order too. 9. The offences committed by the petitioner in the remote past and the orders passed by this Court at pre-execution stage directing not to consider those cases involved in those petitions, may not be relied on for passing of any order of preventive detention by the Detaining Authority, still the activities of the petitioner cannot be ignored by this Court while considering petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not at pre-execution stage but may be at pre-proposal stage. Though stale cases cannot be considered for passing an order of preventive detention, it reflects the nature of the petitioner and it will certainly deter the Court for granting any relief to him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where petitioner is also not sure whether order of detention is passed or not, that too, in a petition filed at pre-execution stage. 10. This petition is filed only on assumption that order of preventive detention will be passed against the petitioner. However, the foundational facts are missing in it. If in every case a detenue is permitted to file petition at pre-execution stage and seek stay of operation of the order before it is executed, the very purpose of the order and of the law under which it is to be made, will be frustrated. Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner has failed to show any glaring facts based on which it can be said that no prudent man may even subjectively satisfied for passing an order of preventive detention. He has further failed to show that it falls within those few cases, limited in scope and number to entertain the petition, that too, at pre-execution stage. He has failed to make out an exceptional case where not only pre-execution stage but even pre-proposal stage, it would compel this Court to entertain this petition and exercise its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has failed to make out an exceptional case where not only pre-execution stage but even pre-proposal stage, it would compel this Court to entertain this petition and exercise its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since no order of detention is yet claimed to have been passed by the Authority, as submitted by the petitioner, whether detention order is passed on sound principles of law or not and whether the said decision is arbitrary or not, cannot be decided in this petition.” 10. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the order dated 26.10.2020 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court was challenged by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 846 of 2020. However, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeal vide order dated 06.11.2020 and, thereby confirmed the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 11. Recently, this Court passed an order dated 26.10.2020 in Special Civil Application No. 12670 of 2020 and after considering the decisions rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and Another (supra) as well as Deepak Bajaj vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), this Court has observed in Paragraph-7 as under: “7. Considering the fact that FIRs are registered against the present petitioner and the petitioner has not been able to point out any exceptional case as decided by the Apex Court and Division bench of this Court, the case of the petitioner is not such that it can be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and no other exceptional circumstance is carved out to intervene with the principles of the detention. Hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.” 12. In the order dated 03.12.2014 passed by the Full Bench of this Court, it has been observed in Paragraph-9.1 as under: “9.1 The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion would be that in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of detention at pre-detention/pre-execution stage as such the Court is not obliged and/or bound to call for the original file, order of detention and the grounds for detention to satisfy itself whether the order of detention is sustainable or not. However, in an appropriate case being made out on the basis of the averments on affidavit and on the grounds set out in the memo of the petition, the Court in its discretion would have jurisdiction to call for the original file, order of detention and grounds for detention so as to satisfy itself the challenge to the order of detention at pre-execution stage on the grounds which may be available under the law at the pre-detention/pre-execution stage, however such powers may be exercised in exceptional and rare cases and such exercise can be undertaken by a Writ Court with extreme care, caution and circumspection. At the same time, in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of detention at pre-execution stage, the detenu as a matter of right cannot seek a Writ of Mandamus directing the detaining authority to produce the original file, order of detention and grounds of detention as otherwise also, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions, the detenu is not entitled to the grounds of detention unless the order of detention is served and executed upon the detenu.” 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid orders passed by this Court, if the facts of the present case are examined, it can be said that there is no averment in the petition except referring to the background of the case and apprehension as indicated above, no averments are made as to how the detention order would fall under the zone of interference as indicated in the aforesaid decisions. Even assuming that the apprehension of the petitioner is well-founded, that is not all the requirement of law for challenge to the order of detention at a pre-execution stage. It is settled legal position that the Court would be slow to interfere in the order of detention at a pre-execution stage. The Court would proceed with the presumption that the authority vested in the detaining authority would be exercised for a germane cause and in public interest. There cannot be any presumption to the contrary and, therefore, unless a strong case for interference is made out at pre-execution stage, the interference would be unwarranted at that stage. 14. It is also further clear that the petition cannot be entertained though the same is maintainable, more particularly, at pre-execution stage even if the order of detention is passed against co-accused. 14. It is also further clear that the petition cannot be entertained though the same is maintainable, more particularly, at pre-execution stage even if the order of detention is passed against co-accused. In the present case, there is no averment in the petition that the order of detention has been passed even against co-accused. The tenor of the petitions that are filed in the Court indicate that the burden shifted on the Court to inquire into from the respondent detaining authorities as to whether there is a case for the detaining authority to pass an order of detention, the Courts cannot be made substitutes of detaining authorities to inquire into the mind of the detaining authority to suggest whether the detention orders are necessary to be passed. 15. In the facts of the present case, as observed hereinabove, the petitioner has failed to point out any exceptional circumstance, which requires interference at this stage. Even the details of the so-called detention order have not been given by the petitioner. Therefore, it appears that the present petition is filed only on the basis of the apprehension without any further details and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid decisions/orders passed by this Court, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition. 16. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.