JUDGMENT V. A. MOHTA, J. :- This is a Habeas Corpus Petition by a detenu Anthony alias Sandy John Nigero under the National Security Act, 1980. 2. The three incidents - the gist of which is given below - formed the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. (a) On 28-7-1991 at night, the detenu, his other associate including co-detenu Ninad Mayekar (Petitioner in the connected Writ Petition No. 1185 of 1992) armed with knife/choppers questioning Bala Kawathankar as to why he was reporting to the police against them, abused him and assaulted with knife and the blunt sides of choppers. When his friend Raja tried to intervene, detenu and his other associates pushed him and tried to assault Raja with choppers. Raja got scared and started running. He was chased and attacked with choppers injuring him on his left elbow. The detenu and other associates threatened Raja that his intestine will be taken out in case he reported the matter to the police. The people on the road got scared and ran helter skelter. Bala as well as Raja were taken for medical treatment. An offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the detenu and other associates. They were arrested. The Magistrate released them on bail they availed of bail. (b) On 9-10-1991 at night, Rajendra Chalke along with residents of Radha Balwant Niwas, Kelkar Road, Dadar, were witnessing a Garba dance at Kelkarwadi. The detenu and other associates rushed towards Rajendra, gave repeated blows with weapons on several parts of his body. Rajendra fell down, shouted loudly for help, but none came to his rescue due to fear of the detenu and his associates. People got scared and ran away from the place as the detenu and his associates brandished the weapons towards them to terrorise them. Rajendra was removed to K.E.M. Hospital with grievoue injuries. An offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the detenu and others. The detenu and his associates were arrested. Metropolitan Magistrate ordered their release on bail. Bail facility was availed of. (c) On 5/12/1991 at night, as many as 25 injuries on the person of Atul Khot were inflicted by the detenu and his associates. They thereafter terrorised the pedestrians by brandishing their weapons. People got scared and ran helter skelter. The detenu and his associates were arrested. Metropolitan Magistrate ordered their release on bail. Bail facility was availed of. (c) On 5/12/1991 at night, as many as 25 injuries on the person of Atul Khot were inflicted by the detenu and his associates. They thereafter terrorised the pedestrians by brandishing their weapons. People got scared and ran helter skelter. The motor vehicles took reverse and sped away. The assailants then caught hold of one Shantaram Vasudeo Kevat who was sleeping on the footpath and raised a knife to assault him. He resisted and in the process sustained injuries on the right hand. Realizing that Shantaram was a Bhaiyya the assailants ran away. Jadhav as returning home after viewing a drama in Shivaji Mandir, Dadar (West). He noticed people running helter skelter near Grindlay's Bank. Out of curiosity, he rushed there and noticed Atul Khot lying in a pool of blood. He rushed the injured to his house. Atul Khot was removed to the K. E. M. Hospital where he was declared dead. An offence under Sections 143 to 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the detenu and his associates was registered. The detenu confessed having committed the crime. The detenu and the associates were arrested. The learned Sessions Judge released them on bail. Bail facility was availed of. 3. The following five points are urged by Shri Thakare, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. (a) The Petitioner was not informed that he had a right of legal assistance of a next friend and to adduce evidence in rebuttal before the Advisory Board. Moreover, the Advisory Board had not adjourned the hearing to enable the Petitioner to keep the next friend present for legal assistance. These failures vitiated the detention; (b) Confession of the detenu made before the Police Officer or other similar matters inadmissible in evidence as per Evidence Act or Criminal Procedure Code cannot legally form the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and since in this case it is based also on such material the detention is bad in law (c) There is no independent material about terror striker mental condition of the residences of locality - leading to an inference of disturbance of even tempo. (d) There has been inordinate and unexplained delay in the framing of the order of detention. (d) There has been inordinate and unexplained delay in the framing of the order of detention. (e) The three incidents mentioned in the grounds do not pertain to the maintenance of the "public order." 4. Point No. 1 :- The order of detention has, along with the grounds, been served on the detenu on 17-5-1992. The detenu has been informed that if he wishes to make any representation to the Advisory Board against the detention order he could do so and address it to the Chairman and submit through the Superintendent of Jail. He was further informed that he shall be heard in person by the Board if it considers it necessary to do so if he so desires and the desire, if any, to be heard in person may also be similarly communicated. The detenu neither made any representation nor expressed a desire to be heard in person in response to that communication. The Secretary, Advisory Board issued a letter dated 22-5-1992 informing that in case the Petitioner wanted to make a representation he could address it to the Chairman, immediately. The Petitioner did not respond. Meeting of the Board was fixed on 26-6-1992. As per the normal practice he was brought from Nasik Prison to Bombay on 22-6-1992 for giving personal hearing by the Board. On 26-6-1992 he made detailed 7 paged representation couched in legal, making three prayers : (a) he should be heard in person; (b) he may be allowed to have assistance of the next friend; and (c) the order of detention be quashed and set aside; What transpired at the meeting dated 26-6-1992 is stated in the affidavit of the Secretary of the Board correctness of which is not disputed before us. The Members of the Board made queries to the Petitioner and asked whether his next friend was present. He replied in the negative and did not pray for adjournment. The Members of the Board made some queries to S.I. Mahale and P. I. Deshmukh at the end. It is against the above factual backdrop that the validity of the grievance has to be judged. Now, the Petitioner has been made aware of his right of representation - constitutional as well as statutory - Neither the Constitution nor the statute makes it mandatory to permit assistance of next friend to the detenu or adducing adjourn the matter without a request. Now, the Petitioner has been made aware of his right of representation - constitutional as well as statutory - Neither the Constitution nor the statute makes it mandatory to permit assistance of next friend to the detenu or adducing adjourn the matter without a request. More evidence in rebuttal by him. This right is spelt out from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A. K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710 : (1982 Cri LJ 340). Supreme Court has indicated that if asked for by the detenu, those opportunities ought to be granted. No where we notice requirement of giving advance information to the detenu, about those rights. It is submitted that right of representation can never be effectively exercised without those opportunities and hence failure to intimate those rights adversely affects the right of representation itself and on that count the order of detention gets vitiated. The submission cannot be accepted, for its acceptance would amount to tretching the ratio of the Supreme Court decision and the width of the right to receive intimation about the right of representation too far. 5. The Petitioner was twice informed about his right of representation, first by the detaining authority on 17-5-1992 and second by the Secretary of the Board on 22-5-1992 when he was called upon to exercise the right immediately. He was also asked twice to indicate whether he desired to be heard in person, He did not respond till the actual meeting of the Board on 26-6-1992, when he personally handed over the representation and made certain prayers for the first time in the meeting. Submission that the Petitioner was not aware of his legal rights and hence could not keep the next friend available at the hearing in the absence of date and place of hearing does not sound altruistic. Seven paged representation obviously drafted by a person knowing laws of detention was presented in the meeting. When questioned, no prayer for adjournment was made. There is considerable force in the stand taken by the Respondents that the whole move was strategic solely with a view to raise a ground and not with a view to have hearing. Submission that the Advisory Board was duty bound to adjourn the hearing suo motu only on noticing written prayer for assistance of a next friend, cannot be accepted. Submission that the Advisory Board was duty bound to adjourn the hearing suo motu only on noticing written prayer for assistance of a next friend, cannot be accepted. No request for adjournment was made by the Petitioner. Advisory Board was within the its right not to over, adjournment may not be granted even if asked for. If refusal is unjustified and prejudice the case of the detenu, it may affect the validity of the order. But all will depend upon, totality of circumstances in each case. In this connection it will have to be borne in mind that personal hearing before the Advisory Board is not mandatory under law. It has to be granted only if the Board considers it necessary or if the detenu askes for it. In this connection useful reference may be made to the decision of the Madras High Court Suman etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1986 Cri LJ 1662 (FB) : AIR 1986 Mad 318 . 6. Our attention was invited to the following decisions by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of this point :- (a) State of Andhra Pradesh v. Balajangam Subbarajamma, 1989 SCC (Cri) 75 : (1989 Cri LJ 853). In this decision, the Supreme Court has laid down that since the Advisory Board heard the Officer of the Police Department on behalf of the detaining authority and the Government, it ought to have permitted the detenu also to have the legal assistance. (b) State of Punjab v. Sukhpal Singh, 1990 SCC (Cri) 1 : (1990 Cri LJ 584). In this case, the detention order was quashed because the Advisory Board had, for no reason refused the genuine request for a short adjournment even though there was ample time to submit report within time. (c) Fatmabi Sheikh Bhiman @ Sunabi v. The Commissioner of Police, (1992) III CCR 2619. In the above decision, this Court has held that right of representation would include knowing the authority to whom the representation is to be addressed and the manner in which the representation is to reach that authority. Absence thereof would vitiate the detention order. Ratio of none of the above decisions applies to the matter at hand. We, therefore, see no substance in the point. 7. Point No. 2. It is well settled that neither is the detenu an accused nor are detention proceedings his trial. Absence thereof would vitiate the detention order. Ratio of none of the above decisions applies to the matter at hand. We, therefore, see no substance in the point. 7. Point No. 2. It is well settled that neither is the detenu an accused nor are detention proceedings his trial. Detention is based not on facts proved as per Evidence Act or Cr. P.C. but on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that detention is necessary for prevention of prejudicial activities in future. Therefore, rules and principles of criminal jurisprudence in general will not apply to preventive detention. Some element of suspicion, anticipation and speculation is inherent in the preventive detention. The detention proceedings are neither criminal nor quasi criminal, nor judicial nor quasi judicial in character. Detention order, more or less, is administrative in nature and the detaining authority is not bound by strict rules of Evidence Act or Cr. P.C. It may be mentioned that even "in camera" statements can be relied upon for reaching the subjective satisfaction. In this connection Section 8(2) of the N.S. Act is also worth noticing. Reliance was placed on Art. 21 of the Constitution in support of the point. We see no justification to do so. The National Security Act is also a "law" and it prescribes a procedure for taking personal liberty. 8. Point No. 3. The grounds of detention mean not only the factual inferences but, mean the factual inferences plus the material on which the inferences have been drawn. In case the inference about possibility of carrying on in future the prejudicial activities affecting the public order can be reasonably drawn from the incidents, detention order can be founded upon those activities for reaching the subjective satisfaction. Existence of statement of residents of locality unconnected with the actual incident to the effect that they were terrorised due to the activities of the detenu is not a must. Indeed the subjective satisfaction cannot be questioned on the ground of insufficiency of the factual material. Some one may reasonably dub recording of each statement as farcical. Existence of statement of residents of locality unconnected with the actual incident to the effect that they were terrorised due to the activities of the detenu is not a must. Indeed the subjective satisfaction cannot be questioned on the ground of insufficiency of the factual material. Some one may reasonably dub recording of each statement as farcical. In this context, we may reproduce the following passage from the case of Parkash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala, AIR 1986 SC 687 : (1986 Cri LJ 786) at page 796; of Cri LJ :- "There is no rule of law that commonsense should be put in cold storage while considering constitutional provisions for safeguards against misuse of powers by authorities though these constitutional provisions should be strictly construed ..... Court is not the place where one can sell all tales.". 9. Point No. 4. The range of the incidents is between July, 1991 to December, 1991. The Petitioner was last arrested on 22nd December, 1991 and was ordered to be released on bail on 18th March 1992 which facility he availed up to 27th March 1992. The Sponsoring Authority prepared the proposal on 27th March, 1992. The said proposal reached the detaining authority on 8th April, 1992 through usual channel of the Office of the P.C.B.C.I.D. Senior P.I., P.C.B.C.I.D., Selection Grade Police Prosecutor, Assistant Commissioner of Police, P.C.B., C.I.D., Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) and Joint Commissioner of Police. The detaining authority passed the order on that very day. The order could not be served on the detenu up to 17th May, 1992 because he could not be traced despite efforts. Hence the delay is properly explained. Indeed, at one stage argument was advanced that the very fact that more than one order was passed on the date of receipt of the bulky proposals shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Moreover, it cannot be said that the delay, if any, has resulted into snapping the live link between the activities and the purpose of detention. 10. Point No. 5. The submission that the three incidents pertain only to individual disputes and hence, if at all relate to the "law and order" and not the "public order" cannot be accepted. Moreover, it cannot be said that the delay, if any, has resulted into snapping the live link between the activities and the purpose of detention. 10. Point No. 5. The submission that the three incidents pertain only to individual disputes and hence, if at all relate to the "law and order" and not the "public order" cannot be accepted. The distinction between the two is well crystalliszed by judicial pronouncements made from time to time and therefore it is necessary to deal with the various decisions cited by learned Counsel for the parties. In case the activities create terror in the minds of the peace-loving people of society and thereby disturb the even tempo of society, they would be prejudicial to the maintenance of "the public order" irrespective of the persons involved. The gist of the incidents have been noticed. There is enough material to come to the conclusion that on account of the activities of the detenu, the even tempo of the locality was disturbed and there were possibilities of recurrence also in future. The last point also, therefore, cannot be accepted. 11. To conclude, the petition is dismissed and rule discharged. Petition dismissed.