1. This petition challenges enforcement, implementation and execution of the order of detention dated 25-8-2011 prepared and sought to be served on the petitioner by the respondent No.3- Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Una, District Junagadh.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.M.Dagli and learned Asstt. Government Pleader, Mrs.Krina Calla for the respondents.
3. It is submitted by learned advocate, Mr.Dagli that detention orders passed against the co-detenues i.e. original accused Nos.1,2, 4 and 6 have been revoked by the Advisory Board. According to him, the petitioner is original accused No.5 in the said case and since the order of detention passed against co- detenues has been revoked, petitioner is entitled to be released even at a pre-execution stage. In this connection, he has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Alpesh Navinchandra Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 570.
4. The aforesaid submission made by learned advocate has not been disputed by learned AGP.
5. It is true that orders of detention passed against the co-detenues namely accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 were revoked by the Home Department of State of Gujarat vide orders dated 14-10-2011, 11-10-2011, 11-12- 2011 and 12-11-2011 respectively. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Alpesh Navinchandra Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 570 as under:
“54. In the instant case, the petitioner's brother has already been released on the ground there was no sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Act. The Government also accordingly revoked the detention order issued against him and the Government of Maharashtra, after considering the report of the Advisory Board and the material on record and in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 8(f) of the COFEPOSA Act revoked the aforesaid detention order and further directed that Kamlesh Navinchandra Shah be released forthwith on receipt of the said order dated 05.06.2006. In our opinion, the petitioner before us who is also similarly placed and who has also paid the customs duty etc. pursuant to the order of the Settlement Commission and got the unconditional immunity by the Settlement Commission is entitled to the same treatment. At the time of hearing, it is pointed out that the petitioner has ceased his activities in the field of import or export and has already paid the tax with penalty as demanded by the authority and there is nothing on record that the appellant has indulged in any such activity in the recent past. It is settled by law that the purpose of passing the detention order is to prevent the detenu from continuing his prejudicial activity but not to punish him.
55. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no purpose will be served by continuing the detention order and we, therefore, allow the writ petition and quash and set aside the detention order bearing No. PSA 1204/21(2)/SPL-3(A) dated 12.01.2005.”
6. Hence, in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above reported judgment, the order of detention would not be sustained.
7. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of dated 25-8-2011 prepared and sought to be served on the petitioner by the respondent No.3-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Una, District Junagadh, passed against the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
[M.D.SHAH,J.] radhan