JUDGMENT (ORAL) Kurdurkar, J. - One Rajesh @ Raja Laxman Karande came to be detained pursuant to the order dated 2nd May 1991 issued under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, by the 1st Respondent-the detaining authority (Commissioner of Police, Bombay). The Petitioner is the father of the detenu, who seeks to challenge the legality and correctness of the impugned detention order. 2. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition raised various contentions and in order to deal with these contentions it would be necessary to set out the gist of the grounds of detention on which the impugned detention order is passed. The grounds of detention are annexed at Exhibit C to the compilation. Two anonymous applications dated 30-9-1990 and 9-10-1990 were received by the Commissioner of Police, wherein it has been stated that the detenu along with his associates Hiralal @ Hirya Bapurao Bobade, Kishore Sitaram Sonawane, Subhash Sitaram Sonawane and other henchmen have formed a gang and have indulged in extorting money to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- from the businessmen from the localities of Dhobi Talao, Marine Drive (N.S. Road), Marine Street and the areas adjoining thereto in Greater Bombay. Those applications were sent to the Azad Maidan Police Station for enquiry and it was confirmed that there is some substance in the contents of the said applications. So many victims have suffered and many are carrying a sense of insecurity, who are residing in those localities. They are, therefore, not prepared to come forward and lodge complaints against the detenu. The Police Officers after taking some persons into confidence who were victims, lodged complaints against the detenu on the basis of which complaints the Detaining Authority relied upon the three incidents which are set out and relied upon by the Detaining Authority in the grounds of detention. The first incident took place on October 7, 1990 at about 14 hours, in the shop of one Dinesh Gupta. He is running a business. He is the proprietor of Swati Trading Corporation which deals in electric goods, having shop on the ground floor of Umar Manzil, Dhobi Talao, Bombay. On the date of incident, the detenu along with his associates Kishor, Sitaram, Sonawane, Sub hash Sitaram Sonawane and Rajan Indrakumar Pandey entered his shop. He is running a business. He is the proprietor of Swati Trading Corporation which deals in electric goods, having shop on the ground floor of Umar Manzil, Dhobi Talao, Bombay. On the date of incident, the detenu along with his associates Kishor, Sitaram, Sonawane, Sub hash Sitaram Sonawane and Rajan Indrakumar Pandey entered his shop. The detenu threatened Shri Dinesh Gupta that he (Dinesh Gupta) has been called by his another associate-Hirya at Kranti Nagar, Girgaon. Dinesh Gupta was not knowing this Hirya and when he asked as to who is this Hirya, the detenu warned him saying" (Hindi words) "(How you don't know, if you go there you will come to know). Thereupon, Dinesh Gupta gave his visiting card to the detenu and asked him to give it to Hirya, so that latter can contact him on phone. The detenu and his associates then left the shop premises. Within an hour Dinesh Gupta received a telephonic call claiming to be from Hirya threatening Shri Gupta that he should come to Kranti Nagar, Dinesh Gupta asked him on phone as to what was the work. Hirya then told him to come to Kranti Nagar and then he will come to know the nature of work. Within a short time, again detenu visited the shop of Dinesh Gupta and assured him that he would accompany him (Dinesh Gupta) to Kranti Nagar. Dinesh Gupta told the detenu that he had a talk with Hirya and he would be going to Kranti-Nagar on 9-11-1990 of his own. In the evening, detenu visited the shop of Dinesh Gupta and told him that he had been called by his associate Hirya immediately. Dinesh Gupta was unable to accompany him immediately and promised that he would see Hirya at 9 or 10 hrs. on 9-10-1990. On 9-10-1990 at about 14 hrs. detenu visited the shop and asked Dinesh Gupta to accompany him to Kranti Nagar. The detenu then contacted Hirya. When Dinesh Gupta met Hirya, Hirya questioned him as to how he did not respond despite several calls through the detenu. Hirya then threatened Dinesh Gupta saying: "(Hindi words)" "(You have become otherwise. Don't you know me, we have committed two murders). Hirya then demanded Rs. 50,000/- from Dinesh Gupta. After great persuation Hirya reduced the amount to Rs. 5,000/-. When Dinesh Gupta met Hirya, Hirya questioned him as to how he did not respond despite several calls through the detenu. Hirya then threatened Dinesh Gupta saying: "(Hindi words)" "(You have become otherwise. Don't you know me, we have committed two murders). Hirya then demanded Rs. 50,000/- from Dinesh Gupta. After great persuation Hirya reduced the amount to Rs. 5,000/-. When Dinesh Gupta asked Hirya as to why this money is demanded, Hirya told him that his boss Dasharath Rahane has asked for the said money. Dinesh Gupta was knowing Dasharath Rahane as a gangster from Kranti Nagar. Dinesh Gupta was then allowed to go. After about 2 days, the detenu visited the shop of Dinesh Gupta when the latter paid Rs. 5,000/- to the detenu to be paid to Hirya and Dasharath Rahane. Due to danger to the life, Dinesh Gupta did not file any complaint against him. On the basis of this complaint, offence came to be registered at Azad Maidan Police Station being C.R. No. 684 of 1990 for the offence punishable under section 384-119 of the Indian Penal Code. A chopper was recovered at the instance of the detenu on 17-11-1990. During investigation, certain other weapons were recovered from the associates of the detenu and cases were filed against them under the Bombay Police Act. The detenu was arrested on 4-11-1990, but he was released on bail on 19-11-1990. The detenu deposited cash amount of Rs. 1,000/- and came to be released on 22-11-1990. 3. The second incident relied upon by the Detaining Authority took place on 12-10-1990 at about 19-30 hrs. When one Ahmed left his restaurant for purchase of hotel material. When. Ahmed returned to his hotel at about 20-45 hrs. He was told by Mohan that the detenu had given threats on phone at 18 hrs stating that Ahmed would have to face serious consequences if he did not stop lodging complaints against the detenu and his associates. Threat was also given that the restaurant and the property therein would be damaged. Ahmed and Mohan reported the incident to Azad Maidan Police Station when N.C. complaint has recorded on 12-10-1990. On 13-10-1990 at about 14 hrs. when Ahmed was at the counter of his restaurant, the detenu and his associates Rajan Bangali, Rajan Pandey, Rajesh Verlekar entered the restaurant. Ahmed and Mohan reported the incident to Azad Maidan Police Station when N.C. complaint has recorded on 12-10-1990. On 13-10-1990 at about 14 hrs. when Ahmed was at the counter of his restaurant, the detenu and his associates Rajan Bangali, Rajan Pandey, Rajesh Verlekar entered the restaurant. Rajan Bangali threatened Ahmed and told him that he (Ahmed) has been called at Kranti Nagar by detenu's boss Hirya Bobade. Ahmed asked him the reason for calling him. Thereupon, detenu and his associates Rajan Bangali and Rajesh Verlekar threatened Ahmed and abused him in the name of his sister and warned not to talk so much and follow with them else face the consequences. (Hindi words) "Realising danger, Ahmed got frightened and requested them to do something and settle the matter. Rajan Bangali asked Ahmed to pay Rs. 1,000/- immediately. After great perusation the amount was settled at Rs. 700/-. While leaving the restaurant, the detenu and his associates threatned Ahmed not to report the matter to the police or else he would face dire consequences. Realising danger to his life, Ahmed did not report. Again on 14-10-1990 at about 19 hrs. When Ahmed was sitting at the counter Bharat, Vijaya, Subhash and Rajesh Verlekar, associates of the detenu entered the restaurant and told Ahmed that their boss Hirya has called him at Kranti Nagar and start immediately. Ahmed thought that it would be better to go to Hirya and settle with him. On reaching Kranti Nagar Ahmed asked Hirya as to why he has been called. Thereupon, Hirya threatened Ahmed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/-. After great persuation the amount was reduced to Rs. 25,000/- which Ahmed agreed to pay, in two instalments within one week, to Rajesh Verlekar (his associate). Ahmed Ali came back to his restaurant along with Rajesh Verlekar on his motor bike. Rajesh Verlekar then threatened Ahmed to pay Rs. 200/- for expenditure. Other associates also by that time came there in a cab, and due to frightened condition Ahmed paid Rs. 200/- to Rajesh Verlekar. Ahmed made enquiries about Dasharath Rahane who was a gangster collecting Hapta money from shop keepers from Dhobi Talao area with the help of the detenu and his associates mentioned above. In this connection, crime came to be registered under section 384-114 of the Indian Penal Code at Azad Maidan Police Station vide C.R. No. 695/1990. 200/- to Rajesh Verlekar. Ahmed made enquiries about Dasharath Rahane who was a gangster collecting Hapta money from shop keepers from Dhobi Talao area with the help of the detenu and his associates mentioned above. In this connection, crime came to be registered under section 384-114 of the Indian Penal Code at Azad Maidan Police Station vide C.R. No. 695/1990. During investigation, some of the associates of the detenu were apprehended and criminal case came to be filed against the detenu and his associates. The detenu and others were releaesd on bail in the sum of Rs. 950/- with one surety each or on cash deposit of Rs. 750/- each. Accordingly, the detenu deposited cash amount and he came to be released on bail on 23-11-1990. 4. The Detaining Authority then relied upon third incident which took place on 9-10-1990 at about 16 hrs. In the said incident name of the victim is Premchand Damji Shah. Shri Shah carries on business in the name of D.D. Shah Co. at Dhobi Talao. The modu-operandi of the detenu in this incident is almost identical and, therefore, we do not think it necessary to reproduce the same. 5. After referring to these three incidents and the fact that the detenu has availed the bail, the Detaining Authority has reached the following conclusion: "As a result of your abovementioned activities, the peace loving and law abiding citizens of the localities of Dhobi Talao, Marine Drive (N.S. Road), Marine Street and the area adjoining thereto within the jurisdiction of the Azad Maidan Police Station in Greater Bombay are experiencing a sense of insecurity and are living and carrying their daily avocation under constant shadow of fear whereby the even tempo of the life of the citizens of the areas has been disturbed. Thus, I am satisfied that, your activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the said localities and areas in Greater Bombay". After recording the above conclusions, the Detaining Authority recorded its subjective satisfaction and while doing so, he opined that in view of the detenu's tendencies and inclinations reflected in the offences committed by him, he is satisfied that the detenu is likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future. It is, therefore, necessary to detain him under the National Security Act, 1980, to prevent him from acting in such prejudicial manner in future. It is, therefore, necessary to detain him under the National Security Act, 1980, to prevent him from acting in such prejudicial manner in future. It is not necessary to set out rest of the paragraphs contained in the grounds of detention since no contention was raised before us based on these paragraphs. 6. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition urged that there is enormous delay of seven months in passing the impugned order from the date of incident. The detenu was released on bail sometime in the month of November 1990. No incident whatsoever happened in the localities referred to in the grounds of detention involving the detenu and if this be so, it must follow that livelink is snapped and it is wholly unnecessary to invoke the preventive law. This action of the 1st Respondent amounts to punitive rather than preventive (See Grounds 5(g) and (H) of the amended petition.) 7. Mr. S. Ramamurthi, Commissioner of Police the Detaining Authority in his affidavit dated 21-1-1992 in para 2 has given necessary details to indicate and explain the period of seven months. In substance, the Detaining Authority has stated that after release of the detenu on 26th November 1990 the Sponsoring Authority prepared the proposal for detention and submitted through proper channel for scrutiny on 11-2-1991. The said proposal was further scrutinised by the officers of the various cadres in the Police Constabulary attached to Colaba Division, Bombay. Final proposal was submitted by the Joint Commissioner of Police on 26th March 1991. This proposal reached the office of the Commissioner after due scrutiny. After perusing the said proposal the Detaining Authority sought some additional information orally about the other associates of the detenu who were involved alongwith the detenu in the incidents in question refferred to hereinabove. In this process some time was consumed and ultimately on 2nd May 1991, he formulated the grounds of detention and issued the impugned detention order on the same day. In this process some time was consumed and ultimately on 2nd May 1991, he formulated the grounds of detention and issued the impugned detention order on the same day. The Detaining Authority then stated that: "I therefore humbly submit that even though the time taken for issuing the order of detention is a little longer, it shows that at each and every step, care was taken before passing impugned detention order and hence, the delay, if any caused in passing the impugned detention order, the same does not vitiate the validity and legality of the impugned order of detention". The Detaining Authority also denied the allegation of the detenu that livelink is snapped. The Detaining Authority asserted that having regard to the magnitude of the criminal activities and potentiality of the detenu and his associates, residents of the localities are experiencing a sense of insecurity and even tempo of the locality is disturbed. Ordinary law of the land is found inadequate to deal with the detenu in as much as the detenu has been released on bail on cash deposit. 8. Mr. Tripathi branded the affidavit as stuffed one to explain delay of over 7 months, which is no explanation at all. In the absence of satisfactory explanation, the Court must come to the conclusion that there was no necessity to clamp down the preventive detention on the detenu after a period of seven months. In support of this submission, Mr. Tripathi drew our attention to an unreported decision of this Court in Mangilal Jain v. State of Maharashtra and others1. It was a case where there was a delay at every stage and the relevant dates have been set out in the judgment in paragraph 4. After going through this judgment, we find that the said decision is clearly distinguishable on facts. Mr. Tripathi then drew our attention to another unreported decision of this Court in Pravinchandra Ratansi Gala v. Home Secretary2. In this case also there was no satisfactory explanation offered by the Detaining Authority and as a result thereof the Court came to the conclusion that there was delay in passing the detention order. This decision again is clearly distinguishable on facts. Mr. Tripathi drew our attention to another unreported decision of this Court in Smt. Vimla Jugraj Jain v. Union of India and Ors.3. This decision again is clearly distinguishable on facts. Mr. Tripathi drew our attention to another unreported decision of this Court in Smt. Vimla Jugraj Jain v. Union of India and Ors.3. After going throught the said judgment, we find that the explanation given by the Detaining Authority was found to be not satisfactory and therefore, the Court came to the conclusion that there was delay in issuing order of detention. This decision is again distinguishable on facts. 9. Mr. Page, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 strongly relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendrakumar Natwarlal Shah v. State of Gujarat4. While considering the aspect of delay, the Supreme Court has opined that unless the Court finds that the grounds of detention are stale or illusory or that there is no real nexus between the grounds of detention and order of detention, delay in passing the impugned order will not vitiate the detention order. The Supreme Court after taking resume of various decision of the apex Court, held that the delay of five months in making the impugned order does not vitiate the detention order. Ratio of this judgment is found in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the judgment. In our opinion, this ratio clearly applies to the facts of the present case. The Detaining Authority has given explanation and to our mind the said explanation can be accepted. If this be so, the first contention based on delay in making the order must stand rejected. 10. It was then urged by Mr. Tripathi that the Detaining Authority was unmindful of the fact that stringent conditions were imposed upon the detenu while he was released on bail on 26th November 1990. In view of these stringent conditions imposed in the bail order there is no scope whatsoever for the detenu to indulge in criminal activities which would distrub the public order. The fact that the detenu did not involve in any similar activities after his release on bail on 26th November 1990 till detention order was made, would clearly indicate that livelink is snapped. This submission does not appeal to us having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The fact that the detenu did not involve in any similar activities after his release on bail on 26th November 1990 till detention order was made, would clearly indicate that livelink is snapped. This submission does not appeal to us having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Anonymous letters and the three incidents relied upon by the Detaining Authority, clearly establish a fact that the detenu certainly possesses criminal potentiality and if he is left free, would indulge in similar activities in future. The subjective satisfaction based on these incidents cannot be said to be in any way illegal or imaginary. It may also be stated that in all these criminal cases the detenu has availed the bail by cash deposit of the bail amount. This submission, therefore, does not appeal to us and will have to be rejected. 11. Mr. Tripathi then urged that the Detaining Authority in the grounds of detention relied upon two anonymous applications dated 20.9.1990 and 9.10.1990. These applications were enquired into by Azad Maidan Police Station and report must have been submitted. However, copy of the said report was not furnished to the detenu and as a result thereof the petitioner's right to make representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is vitally affected. This submission again is totally unacceptable because all that has been stated in the grounds of detention is that officers of the Azad Maidan Police Station made enquiries which resulted in the affirmative. From these recitals, Mr. Tripathi wanted to draw an inference that the Azad Maidan Police Station must have submitted some report and the said report must have been placed before the Detaining Authority for its consideration. Such inference, in our opinion, is not possible by reading the above statement in the grounds of detention. If there was no such report referred to and relied upon in the grounds of detention by the Detaining Authority then there is no warrant to accept that any such report should have been furnished to the detenu and non-furnishing of the same has violated detenu's fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The contention of Mr. Tripathi, therefore, must be rejected. 12. It was then contended by Mr. Tripathi that there was delay on the part of the Central Government in processing and disposing of the detenu's representation. The contention of Mr. Tripathi, therefore, must be rejected. 12. It was then contended by Mr. Tripathi that there was delay on the part of the Central Government in processing and disposing of the detenu's representation. From the affidavits on record we find that the Central Government took only seven days to dispose of the detenu's representation. Mr. Ishwar Singh in his affidavit dated 20.11.1991 filed on behalf of the Union of India has, in paragraphs 6 and 7 explained the delay and in our opinion, there was no delay on the part of the Central Government in disposing of the detenu's representation. There is, therefore, no substance in this contention also. 13. Mr. Tripathi lastly urged that the grounds of detention are based upon the three incidents which are referable to three businessmen. Assuming that the detenu is involved in these three incidents, these three incidents relate to law and order and do not fall within the domain of 'public order'. Ordinary law of the land can adequately deal with the detenu and there is no reason to clamp down detention order on the detenu. In support of this submission, Mr. Tripathi drew our attention to a reported decision of this Court in Lachhu Meghraj Vidhya v. R.D. Tyagi and Ors.5. To this judgment one of us (Kurdukar, J.) was a pony. It is true that while considering the incidents the Court opined that they fall within the domain of 'law and order' and not 'public order'. It is well settled that the impact of such criminal activities on public at large and potentiality there of are decisive factors to find out whether they fall in 'law and order' or 'public order'. 14. Mr. Page, learned Public Prosecutor strongly relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in Sharad Kumar Tyagi v. State of Utter Pradesh and Others (A.I.R.1989 SC 764)6. In this reported decision, the incidents for which detenu was detained were almost identical in the sense that the detenu was involved in extorting money from the shop-keepers by giving serious threats including causing death on failure to satisfy the demand of money. In this reported decision, the incidents for which detenu was detained were almost identical in the sense that the detenu was involved in extorting money from the shop-keepers by giving serious threats including causing death on failure to satisfy the demand of money. The Supreme Court has referred to various decisions of its own Court and after resume of various reported decisions, the Supreme Court in paragraphs 10 and 14 of the said Judgment has laid down a lest to be applied to determine whether incidents fall within the domain of 'law and order' or 'public order'. We respectfully follow the said decision in the present case. It may also be stated that this decision of the Supreme Court in Sharad Kumar Tyagi (supra) was not brought to the notice of this Court in Lachhu Meghraj's case (supra). No straight jacket formula could be evolved to find out as to whether incidents in question or the criminal activities fall within 'law and order' or 'public order'. It is the gravity and magnitude of the incidents and the impact of such incidents upon me even tempo of the localities is a decisive factor. In the present case, we find from the material brought to our notice that criminal activities of the detenu were causing alarm and people residing in those localilies were living under constant shadow of fear and as a result thereof, even tempo in the localities was disturbed. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the grounds relied upon by the Detaining Authority fall within the domain of 'public order' and not 'law and order' . After considering rival contentions raised before us we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed and we accordingly do so. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed. 1. Crl. W.P. No. 327 of 1990 Decided on 21.6.1990 by Bom. H.C. 2. Crl. W.P. No. 949 of 1990 Decided on 20-11-1990 by Bom. H.C. 3. Cr. W.P. No. 1349 of 1989 decided on 12-3-1990 by Bom. H.C. 4. A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1255. 5. 1991 Cri. L.J.236. 6. A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 764.