N. J. PANDYA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has been detained under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 (PASA for short) by the order of the Police Commissioner of the City of Ahmedabad passed on 17-10-1992. The detenu is said to be involved in 9 different cases and all of them pertain to illegally dealing in fire arms like home made revolvers and country made pistols. Seven cases have been registered at different police stations within the area of the Police Commissioner one case has been registered at Sarkhej Police Station and the remaining one is registered at Panigate Police Station of Baroda city. From the details given in the grounds of detention at page 13 onwards as well as from the supporting material supplied to the detenu along with the detention order it can be gathered that as per the detaining authority the detenu is engaged apparently in a business of manufacturing locks and keys but at the same time he is making use of this manufacturing facility for forgoing out revolvers and country pistols. In the course of survey operation carried out by survey squad of the City of Ahmedabad 10 revolvers and 3 country made pistols were said to have been sold by the detenu to different individuals and all of them were of the manufacture of the detenu. He is also said to be manufacturing cartridges for the weapons that he manufactures. ( 2 ) BASED on these 9 cases as well as statement of 4 witnesses the detaining authority has felt that the detenu is a dangerous person and there is an imminent need to detain him so that he can be prevented from indulging into the activities of the aforesaid nature any more. The cases that he is involved range date-wise from 18-12-1991 to 25 The statements recorded on or about 1st of October 1992 relate to two different instances. One is of 2nd September 1992 and the other is of 13 September 1992. In respect of these two instances there are statements of the victim of the alleged incident and as ex- witness of the same. That is how in all statements of four witnesses have been submitted before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority and relied on for the purpose of passing the aforesaid order. In respect of these two instances there are statements of the victim of the alleged incident and as ex- witness of the same. That is how in all statements of four witnesses have been submitted before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority and relied on for the purpose of passing the aforesaid order. ( 3 ) AS usual we have gone through the different dates with regard to the representation as well as approval and reference to the advisory Board. As will be presently seen the action of the detaining authority and that of the State cannot be said to be faulted at all in this connection. ( 4 ) THE detention order Annexure-A passed on 17 was reported by the detaining authority to the State Government for approval on the same day and it came to be approved on 22-10-1992. ( 5 ) REFERENCE to the Advisory Board was made on 4-11-1992 and its meeting was held on 21 and it submitted its Report on 26 which was received by the State Government on that very day. It was considered and the detention order was confirmed on 8-12-1992. ( 6 ) THE representation was made by the detenu on 10-11-1992 which was received by the State Government on 13-11-1992 and it was considered and rejected on 15-11-1992. Looking to the aforesaid dates it is certain that the State Government had considered the representation and rejected it after the reference was made and before it was rejected. However L. A. Mr. Thakkar has relied on two decisions: (1) in the case of Moosa Husein Sanghar vs. The State of Gujarat reported in 1993 (1) Judgment Today 44 and (2) in the case of K. M. Abdulla Kuhni vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1991 SC 574 and has stated that if the detenu is trying to make out a case that his representation was considered surreptitiously by the Government while the reference was pending the aforesaid decisions are an answer to that point and they provide that if there is unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the report only then there could be a question of the continued detention to be bad. On the contrary as pointed out from the aforesaid dates the representation received from the detenu has been considered as expeditiously as possible no doubt while the reference is pending. On the contrary as pointed out from the aforesaid dates the representation received from the detenu has been considered as expeditiously as possible no doubt while the reference is pending. But in our opinion that having not been pronounced as an illegal exercise on the part of the State and inconsistent with the spirit of Article 22 (5) and there being series of pronouncements of the Supreme Court on this point we do not find anything wrong in that. ( 7 ) L. A. Mr. Gandhi appearing for the petitioner has tried to make out a case that after arresting the accused in one matter rest of the cases have been wrongly foisted on him and therefore there cannot be said to be enough material so far as the registered cases are concerned which were relied on by the detaining authority as a material to pass the order. Firstly we may say that our jurisdiction is not extending for considering the question of sufficiency or otherwise of the material and factually also after going through the papers we are convinced that the position is not as sought to be made on behalf of the detenu. The different F. I. Rs. indicate that the Survey squad was able to apprehend different people with unlicenced arms and on gathering information from them a clear picture had emerged as can be seen from these different 9 cases that the common source for the supply of the unlicenced fire arms which were sold to different persons was the detenu who was manufacturing them at his Baroda residence. ( 8 ) L. A. Mr. Gandhi thereafter submitted these cases necessarily would refer to breach of the provisions of the Arms Act and as such there cannot be said to be any disturbance or breach of public order and same will be the position according to Mr. Gandhi when we go through the statement of the aforesaid four witnesses. No doubt so far as the pair victim and the witnesses are concerned they do say that the victim was belaboured by the detenu and his companion but the statements do not stop at that. They further narrate what happened while the victim was being belaboured and was relieved of Rs. 300/- in case of them incident which occurred on 13-9-1992. They further narrate what happened while the victim was being belaboured and was relieved of Rs. 300/- in case of them incident which occurred on 13-9-1992. People had gathered around the persons involved in the incident and at that time the detenu armed with a revolver and his Companion with knife rushed towards the people who had gathered there and had threatened them with dire consequences. This resulted into people running helter- skelter and prompting the traders merchants and petty hawkers to wind up their businesses and make good their escape from the spot. This had resulted into spread of terror in the area. Same is the position with regard to the other incident which took place on 2-9-1992. ( 9 ) L. A. Mr. Gandhi has relied on a decision in the case of Lachur Meghraj Vidya vs. R. D. Tyagi and Ors. reported in 1991 Cr. L. J. 236 wherein a large group of accused were said to be armed with weapons like pipe sword razor revolver and a motle of them and even then it was considered to be not a question of disturbance of public order but only a question of law and order while dealing with a case under the provisions of National Security Act. It is a well established principle that while dealing with a detention order and more particularly evaluating the question raised as to disturbance to only law and order and that to public order each case has to be evaluated in the light of the facts and circumstances disclosed therein. On this count as well as on the count of statutory material if we examine closely the case before us in our opinion the aforesaid Bombay decision will not help the detenu. Statutorily speaking there is sub-sec. 4 along with its explanation to Sec. 3 of PASA which brings into play a deeming fiction with regard to various categories of anti-social elements described therein- they are dangerous persons boot-leggers persons indulging in immoral traffic and property grabbers. The detenu no doubt is falling in the category of dangerous person as he is said to have committed offences under the Arms Act and is said to be indulging into aforesaid activities as narrated by different witnesses. The detenu no doubt is falling in the category of dangerous person as he is said to have committed offences under the Arms Act and is said to be indulging into aforesaid activities as narrated by different witnesses. We have scrutinised the statements carefully and factually also in our opinion the statement do disclose the disturbance to public order and therefore it is not possible to accept this contention. 10 He also relies on a decision in the case of Lallan Prasad Chunilal Yadav vs. S. Ramamurthi and Ors. reported in AIR 1993 SC 396 . The said decision has resorted to a test evolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Harpeet Kaur reported in AIR 1992 SC 979 . Al page 397 in the course of para 2 a portion from the said Harpeet Kaur-Judgment has been quoted which we also reproduce here under:"the objectionable activities of a detenu have therefore to be judged in the totality of the circumstances to find out whether those activities have any prejudicial effect on the society as a whole or not. If the society and not only an individual surfers on account of the questionable activities of a person then those activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and are not merely prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order". On application of that test if as has been done by the learned Judge of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case there is in only disturbance of law and order and not of public order obviously the benefit will go to the detenu. On application of the aforesaid test itself in our opinion if the situation is otherway round it cant help the detenu. ( 10 ) IN short in our opinion the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot help him in getting the impugned detention order quashed and set aside nor is there any question of the continued detention being bad. The petition is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged. Petition Dismissed. .