K. G. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) NAGINBHAI Ishvarbhai Patel the husband of the petitioner has been detained under the order dated 25/12/1992 passed by the Commissioner of Police Baroda City Respondent No 2 herein under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 (for short PASA Act) on the ground that detenu Naginbhai is a dangerous person and with a view of preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it is necessary to detain him The petitioner being the wife of the detenu has challenged that order. ( 2 ) THE present petition has been moved by the petitioner on 1/06/1993 i. e. during summer vacation. The matter has thereafter adjourned from time to time Accordingly once it was adjourned to 8/07/1993 At that time Mr. B. T. Rao the learned Advocate for the petitioner was not present The court found that Mr. Rao had not been attending to this matter since last some adjournal dates and therefore the court passed the order dated 8/07/1993 which reads as under : In this matter Shri B. T. Rao L. A. for the petitioner has not been attending since last some adjourned dales. The matter therefore is lingering unnecessarily. We distressingly take note of these facts Today we have gone through the petition the detention order the grounds of detention etc. Prima facie we are not satisfied about there being any merit in the petition. However with a view to seeing that no injustice is done to the petitioner we now direct the Ld. A. P. P. Mr. S. P. Dave who appears in the matter to call for the file about the detention of the detenu and produce it for our perusal and for that purpose the matter is adjourned to 12/07/1993 That order was passed by us after going through the petition and the papers annexed hereto. With a view to seeing that no injustice was done to the detenu or the petitioner we had while passing that orders directed Mr. S. P. Dave Ld. APP to call for the file above detention of the detenu and to produce the same for our perusal on the next adjourned date i. e. on 12/07/1993 On 12/07/1993 at the request of Mr. S. P. Dave Ld. APP to call for the file above detention of the detenu and to produce the same for our perusal on the next adjourned date i. e. on 12/07/1993 On 12/07/1993 at the request of Mr. B. T. Rao L. A. for the petitioner we adjourned the matter to 15/07/1993 Thereafter also the matter came to be adjourned on the ground of sickness of Mr. Rao and other allied grounds. The matter has been taken up today for hearing We have heard Mr. Rao the learned Advocate for the petitioner at sufficient length. We have also perused the files about the detention of the detenu. Those files are two in number. One is the file of papers constituted by the detaining authority and the other is the file of papers constituted by the State Government. ( 3 ) MR. Rao L. A. for the petitioner firstly submitted that this being a habeas corpus petition directed against the detention of the detenu we should admit the petition and issue Rule to the respondents as a matter of course To buttress his argument Mr. Rao relied upon- (a) Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria v Union of India and Others AIR 1980 S. C. p. 1983. and (b) Mohinuddin v District Magistrate Beed and Others : AIR 1987 S. C. p. 1977 we have gone through these judgments and we find that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that even in the elaborate arguments levelled by Mr. Rao there is not even a whisper about the technical procedural safeguard in having been volant in the matter of passing of the detention order against the detenu and more particularly in view of the fact that the two files produced by Mr. S. P. Dave. Ld. APP for our persual also do not go to show any breach of any technical procedural safeguards contemplated by the provisions of the PASA Act and Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India we do not think that any of the two judgments relied upon by Mr. Rao which are referred to by us hereinabove would require us to formally admit the petition issue Rule and then aet the petition down for hearing. Rao which are referred to by us hereinabove would require us to formally admit the petition issue Rule and then aet the petition down for hearing. ( 4 ) TRUE in a habeas corpus petition directed in the matter of detention of the detenu under the preventive detention law the technical laws of pleadings are not applicable and even a one-line petition from Jail saying that the detention of the detenu is illegal and that he should be released would be sufficient to require the court to action on the matter and issue Rule on the petition and once Rule is issued it would be for the detaining authority of the State Government to satisfy the court about the validity of the detention order as also the validity of the continued detention of the detenu. The obligation of the detaining authority and the State Government to satisfy the court about the validity of the detention order and about the validity of the continued detention of the detenu and about the strict observances of the procedural safeguards. would commence after the Rule is issued on the petition. Now Rule is required to be issued inter alia for the purpose of satisfying the conscience of the Court that the procedural safeguard have been properly observed. Here as indicated hereinabove the files about the detention of the detenu have been called for and we have perused the same. As said by us we do not find from those files the slightest non-observance of the procedural safeguard. Even Mr. Rao L. A. though he dwelt at length on the merits of the case in his two submissions as we will presently point out he has not even passingly argued that there has been any breach of any of the procedural safeguards comtemplated by the PASA Act and the constitutional mandate contained in Article 22 (5 ). It would therefore be futile on our part now to formally issue Rule to the respondents and call upon them to substantiate the detention order by pointing out that the procedural safeguard have been fully and completely observed in this case. The matter would have stood on a different footing if either in the petition or in the oral submissions of Mr. Rao there had been a grievance or an assertion or a contention about non-observance of any procedural safeguard by the detaining authority or the State Government. The matter would have stood on a different footing if either in the petition or in the oral submissions of Mr. Rao there had been a grievance or an assertion or a contention about non-observance of any procedural safeguard by the detaining authority or the State Government. However as that is not the case here we do not see any reason now to issue Rule. ( 5 ) THIS takes us to the two submissions of Mr. Rao so heavily levelled by him on the merits of the case. Mr. Rao firstly submitted that taking everything as it appeals in the grounds of detention this is not a case invloving a threat to the maintenance of public order but at the worst. It would be a case of threat to the maintenance of law and order for only some individuals are said to have been effected by the activities of the detenu. This was the first line of attack of Mr. Rao. The second submission of Mr. Rao was that though the detaining authority has relied upon the statement of three witnesses those statements are vague and at any rate those statements do not make out a case for any threat having been posed by the detenu to the maintenance of public order. ( 6 ) MR. S. P. Dave Ld. A. P. P. supported the detention order and as said above he has produced for our persual the two files referred to hereinabove. ( 7 ) HAVING bestowed our anxious attention to the submissions of Mr. Rao we do not find any substance in any of them. ( 8 ) IN order to contend that at the worst this could be said to be a case where the detenus activities might have caused concern to the authorities in the maintenance of law and order and not in the matter of maintenance of public order Mr. Rao placed reliance upon (a) Abdul Razak Nannekhan Pathan. V police Commissioner Ahmedabad and. Anr. 1990 (2) G. L. H. p. 137 and (b) Shamjibhai Manjibhai Patel. V. Commissioner of Police City of Ahmedabad and Am. : 1992 (2) G. L. R. p. 1380 we have gone through these judgment as well. Mr. Rao placed reliance upon (a) Abdul Razak Nannekhan Pathan. V police Commissioner Ahmedabad and. Anr. 1990 (2) G. L. H. p. 137 and (b) Shamjibhai Manjibhai Patel. V. Commissioner of Police City of Ahmedabad and Am. : 1992 (2) G. L. R. p. 1380 we have gone through these judgment as well. Mr. Rao also tried to rely upon the judgment in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta AIR 1980 S. C. p. 491 it is to be remembered that the case involves the question of law and order or public order would depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and it could not be gained that even under the law of precedents there cannot be a precedent on facts. Each case ultimately is required to be decided upon its own facts. Of course the principles of law enunciated in the decisions of the Supreme Court as also in the binding decisions of the High Court have got to be borne in mind and followed by the Court while deciding a case on hand before it. But that would not mean that if in the earlier decisions which have a binding force. some view is expressed on the facts of that case that would constitute a proposition of law which has got to be followed in a subsequent case by the court. As said above there cannot be precedent on facts. Precedents have a value only in the matter of understanding the principle of law. Viewed from this angle we do not find any assistance to be taken from the three judgments relied upon by Mr. Rao for canvassing that the present case posed at the worst a threat to the maintenance of law and order and not a threat to the maintenance of public order. We will say only that we have gone through the three judgments relied upon by Mr. B. T. Rao and have kept in mind the principles emerging therefrom. But we would hasten to add that the facts in note of the three cases had any substantial thing in common with the facts of the case on hand before us. ( 9 ) IN the present case the detaining authority has relied upon four cases registered against the detenu. But we would hasten to add that the facts in note of the three cases had any substantial thing in common with the facts of the case on hand before us. ( 9 ) IN the present case the detaining authority has relied upon four cases registered against the detenu. The first case registered against the detenu is at C. R. No. 114 of 1990 for offences under Sections 325 504 114 I. P. Code read with Section 135 Bombay Police Act. On the date of the detention that case was pending trial in the Criminal Court. The second case registered against the detenu was at C. R. No. 90 of 1991 for the offence of murder wherein the detenu had been acquitted on the ground that the case against the detenu has not been proved. The third is a case registered at C. R. No. 208 of 1992 for offences under Section 326 I. P. Code read with Section 135 Bombay Police Act. On the date of the detention that case was pending for trial. The last case relied upon by the detaining authority about which mention has been made in the grounds of detention has been registered against the detenu at C. R. No. 506/92 for the offences punishable under Sections 323. 504 and 506 (2) I P code read with Section 135 Bombay Police Act and that case was pending investigation on the date of detention ( 10 ) IN the grounds of detention the detaining authority stated that the detenu is a dangerous person who indulges in offences punishable under the I P Code The detaining authority further stated that the detenu is a head-strong fanatic and quarrelsome type of person who does not indulge in any honest business and who has formed a gang of similar head-strong and fanatic persons who are goondas and that the detenu is operating that gang and he is the leader of that gang and that the detenu and the associates of the gang continuously remain armed with weapons like rampuri knife sword etc. and they intimidate persons moving in the areas such as Patrani Chawl Shastri Bazar Faramjini Chawl etc. and they intimidate persons moving in the areas such as Patrani Chawl Shastri Bazar Faramjini Chawl etc. and extort money from the pedestrians on the point of knives and they beat innocent persons moving about in the aforesaid localities and create reign of terror in those localities and on account of the fear from the detenu and his associates victims of their activities do not dare to come out to inform the police about the offences committed by them and if someone so dares and comes out to file a complaint then the detenu and his associates would intimidate the informants and the witnesses and by pressurising them compel the witnesses to turn hostile in the court law and on account of the fear emanating from the detenu and his associates the witnesses turn hostile in the court of law and the result thereof has been that even in serious offences the detenu has been acquitted in the criminal cases. It is further stated in the grounds of detention that the detenu and his associates on his gang take a leading part in communal riots and they terrorise the people in the area of their operation and they extort articles from the businessmen without making payment for the articles purchased by them and if any businessman dares to demand from them the value of the articles supplied by him the detenu and his associates silence the businessman by pointing dangerous weapons at him. It is also stated in the grounds of detention that three witnesses have given statements in the matter of detention of the detenu and two out of those three have requested anonymity about their names and addresses being maintained while the third one has requested for anonymity about his name and address as also as regards his business The grounds of detention further state that on account of the activities of the detenu and his associates the witnesses are scared of them and the witnesses are afraid that if their names and addresses are known to the detenu they would certainly suffer damage to their life and property. The detaining authority in the grounds of detention has stated that the Supdt. The detaining authority in the grounds of detention has stated that the Supdt. of Police D Division has verified the statements of those three witnesses and on the basis of that verification he (the detaining authority) has been fully satisfied that it would be in public interest to withhold the particulars about the names and addresses of the witnesses from the detenu and on that ground privilege to withhold those particulars from the detenu has been claimed under Section 9 (2) of the PASA Act Then in the grounds of detention the particulars about the documents supplied to the detenu have been enlisted. It has also been stated in the grounds of detention that the offence registered at C. R. No. 90/91 i. e. the offence of murder has been held not to have been proved against the detenu while in the other two cases the detenu has been released on bail and it is not feasible to get his bail cancelled looking to the stringency of Section 437 Cr. P. Code. Then the feasibility of taking less drastic measures has been considered by the detaining authority and in that regard it has been pointed out that it is not feasible nor is it advisable to resort to less drastic remedies against the detenu such as proceedings under Sections 107 109 and 110 of Code of Criminal Procedure and Sections 55 and 57 of the Bombay Police Act. ( 11 ) AFTER narrating the aforesaid facts the detaining authority concluded in the grounds of detention that looking to the offence registered against the detenu and the statements of the three witnesses who have requested for maintenance of anonimity about them he (the detaining authority) has been surely satisfied that the detenu being a headstrong person who with a view to overawe the people in the area of his operation under one pretext or the other beats innocent citizens and creates reign of terror in the areas of his operation disturbs the maintenance of public order and that if the detenu continued to remain free he would surely continue to indulge in such activities and the probability about that cannot be ruled out. Therefore the detaining authority has been fully satisfied that the detenu is a dangerous person within the meaning of that expression as defined in Section 2 (c) of the PASA Act and that there is need to detenu the detenu. Then the detenu has been explained his right to make representation and the forums for making the representation have been listed in the annexure to the grounds of detention. ( 12 ) AS said above three witnesses gave their statements. All those statements have been recorded on 22/12/1992 The detention order has been passed on 28/12/1992 In other words the statements have been recorded only three days prior to the passing of the detention order. We have perused those three statements and we find that in the first paragraph the witnesses have in general referred to the ferocious and fanatic activities of the detenu and the members of his gang. They have stated that the detenu is the leader of that gang and the detenu and his associates move about carrying with them dangerous weapons like knives swords etc. The area of their operation is also spelt out as Patrani Chawal Shastri Bazar etc. It has also been stated by the witnesses that the detenu and his associates stop the persons moving about on the road as also the persons of the business community on the point of knives extort money from them and under one pretext or the other beat them and create reign of terror in the areas of their operation. The witnesses have also stated that the detenu overawes the citizen in the area of his operation with the result that generally the people are not going to the police for complaining and even witnesses are afraid of giving evidence against them and if some witnesses muster courage to offer themselves for giving evidence against the detenu the detenu ant his associates by intimidating those witnesses would sue to it that the witnesses turned hostile at the trial and the detenu and his associates were ultimately acquitted. ( 13 ) THEN the first witness has referred to an incident dated 9/12/1992 and in that connection he has stated that when at about 1. 30 p. m. or 2. 00 p. m. he was present at the place of his business; the detenu came there carrying a gupti with him. ( 13 ) THEN the first witness has referred to an incident dated 9/12/1992 and in that connection he has stated that when at about 1. 30 p. m. or 2. 00 p. m. he was present at the place of his business; the detenu came there carrying a gupti with him. Seeing the detenu moving about with a gupti persons who were there nearabout stared at the detenu and at that time one person came there on a bicycle and the detenu stopped that person and ordered that person to hand him over that bicycle as he (the detenu) wanted to go to S. T. Stand. In the meantime as stated by the witness the detenu spotted the witness at his place of business and ordered the witness to give him 1 kg. of ghee 1 kg. of oil and other sundry articles of household use. The witness therefore supplied to the detenu articles worth Rs. 225. 00 and carrying those articles when the detenu made an attempt to have the shop the witness demanded the value of the goods supplied by him to the detenu and thereupon the detenu got enraged at the witness and asked the witness as to who he was who would dare to demand money from him and so saying the detenu pointed the gupti at the witness and asked the witness whether he wanted money or he wanted to survive. So saying the detenu slapped the witness twice or thrice and he also incited in associates to beat the witness and thereupon the associates of the detenu beat the witness by means of fist blows and kick blows. Seeing this the shopkeepers from nearby shops gathered there. But soon then the detenu scared away those persons by ordering them to go away and told them that they would also meet the same fate as met by the witness. The witness further stated that the detenu ran at those persons pointing the gupti at them and therefore the persons ran away helter-skelter and even the larri-gallawalas closed their places of business and the vehicular traffic on the road also came to be stranded. The witness has stated that on getting an opportunity he closed his shop and ran away from the scene. However on account of the fear emanating from the detenu he had not informed the police about the incident. The witness has stated that on getting an opportunity he closed his shop and ran away from the scene. However on account of the fear emanating from the detenu he had not informed the police about the incident. Then he has made statements requesting the recording authority to maintain anonimity about ( 14 ) THE second witness also after referring to the activities of the detenu in general terms referred to the incident dated 22/11/1992 and in that connection stated that when at about 7 p. m. he was returning home the detenu met him near Faramji Compound and the detenu and his associates stopped the witness and asked the witness as to why was it that the witness was giving information to the police about the detenu. The witness protested his innocence and thereupon the detenu got enraged at him and the detenu incited his associates to beat the witness whereupon the associates of the detenu beat the witness by means of fist blows and kick blows and even the detenu touched the point of a rampuri knife on the chest of the witness. On seeing this persons from nearby had collected there and thereupon the detenu scared those persons away under a threat that they would also meet the same fate as the witness if they do not run away. Those persons therefore ran away the larri-gallawalas dosed their larri-gallas and the vehicular traffic came to a halt. According to the witness after sometime he ran away towards his house but he did not inform the police on account of fear emanating from the detenu. This second witness also requested the recording authority to maintain anonimity about his name and address. ( 15 ) THE third witness has referred to the incident dated 18/11/1992 In that connection he has stated that when at about 6. 00 p. m. he was standing near Faramji Compound the detenu came to him and order the witness to supply him a dish of chicken and a dish of mutton. The witness complied with the demand and at that time two other associates of the detenu also came there and the detenu ordered the witness to supply chicken to his two associates as well. The detenu and his associates consumed chicken but refused to pay the value thereof and when the witness demanded the value of Rs. 85. The witness complied with the demand and at that time two other associates of the detenu also came there and the detenu ordered the witness to supply chicken to his two associates as well. The detenu and his associates consumed chicken but refused to pay the value thereof and when the witness demanded the value of Rs. 85. 00 the detenu was enraged at him and told the witness that the witness was keeping his larry in the area of operation of the detenu and yet was daring to demand the value of the estables So saying the detenu caught hold of the witness by his collar and slapped him twice or thrice and the detenu drew out a rampuri knife from his pocket and touched it on the neck of the witness and questioned the witness whether he wanted money or death. The witness was scared. He therefore could not speak anything. Persons collected there but then looking to the ferocity of the detenu those passers-by started running helter-skelter and the shops at Shastri Bazar came to be closed and there came to be established a reign of terror and for some time the vehicular traffic on the road also came to be stranded. This witness has further stated that the detenu is a person who has committed 2 and 3 murders and has assaulted a number of people by means of knife and the persons in the locality are all trembling on account of the fear emanating from the detenu and the femalefolk are not in a position to move about freely on account of the fear emanating from the detenu nor does anyone dare to go to the police to lodge an information about the activities of the detenu. This witness has also requested for anonimity about him being maintained. ( dated: 23/07/1993 ( 16 ) AS stated earlier Mr. B. T. Rao L. A. raised two submissions for our consideration. According to him taking everything as it emerges from the grounds of detention and the statements of the three witnesses relied upon by the detaining authority as true the activities of the detenu cannot be said to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order at the worst they could be said to be activities prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order for in the submissions of Mr. Rao only certain specified individuals are affected by the alleged activities of the detenu. We are not in a position to accept the submission of Mr. Rao. As is clear from the grounds of detention there is ample material on the basis of which the detaining authority could have properly reached a subjective satisfaction for saying that the detenu is a dangerous person within the meaning of that expression as defined in Section 2 (c) of the PASA Act. In all 4 cases came to be registered against the detenu. One was a case for an offence of murder which ultimately has been held by the Session Court not to have been proved. Two other cases are pending for trial and the last case is pending investigation. We do not think it is necessary for us to repeat the facts about those cases. Suffice it would be for us to say that from his involvement in the aforesaid four cases and other material on record the detenu could justifiably be said to be a dangerous person. ( 17 ) ONE of the assertions in the grounds of detention is that the detenu with the aid of his associates threatens witnesses who ultimately do not support the prosecution case in court and that leads to the acquitted orders for the detenu. We have seen the files of the detention papers and therein we find the judgment in Sessions Case No. 118 of 1991. That was a case wherein the detenu was charged with an offence of murder and the learned Sessions Judge who tried that case was required to dispose of the case by a short judgment for the reason that all the material eye-witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution so much so that before the Court of Sessions they pleaded absolute ignorance about the incident of murder which according to the prosecution was committed by the detenu. Witness Ram Pyare who came to be examined before the Court of Sessions went to the length of saying that he does not know anything about the murder and he has not given any statement before the police. Witness Ram Dhula went to the length of saying that the detenu has not committed the murder. Similarly another witness Ram Kedar who according to the prosecution was an eye-witness has also turned fully hostile to the prosecution. Witness Ram Dhula went to the length of saying that the detenu has not committed the murder. Similarly another witness Ram Kedar who according to the prosecution was an eye-witness has also turned fully hostile to the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge has noted that these material witnesses having turned hostile the prosecution case against the detenu for the offence of murder has not been proved. We are high-lighting these facts from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge which has been placed before us from the file of the detention papers copy whereof has been supplied to the detenu for pointing out that the assertion made by the detaining authority that the detenu threatens witnesses with dire consequences and thereby secures acquittals is a fact which is born out from the judgment of the Sessions Courts. If the detaining authority has taken that fact into consideration and on the basis thereof has come to the conclusion that not only that the detenu is a dangerous person for his activities bear out that fact as is clear from the four cases registered against him and the other material on record but also he is such a person as would escape from the hands of law by threatening the witnesses and securing acquittals the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority on that line cannot be faulted. ( 18 ) NOT only that 4 cases as above- referred have been lodged against the detenu but three witnesses have made statements against him. It is therefore not as if that the detaining authority has acted only on the basis of the fact of the four cases having been registered against the detenu. Besides the registration of the four cases against the detenu the detaining authority has also taken into account the statements of the witnesses. We will presently come to the statements of witnesses. But at this juncture we would notice that the detaining authority had ample jurisdiction to take into account all the four cases registered against the detenu including the case in which the detenu came to be acquitted for the witnesses did not support the prosecution story. It is not that the case in which the detenu has been acquitted by the criminal court can never be taken into account by the detaining authority for arriving at a subjective satisfaction for the need to detain the detenu. It is not that the case in which the detenu has been acquitted by the criminal court can never be taken into account by the detaining authority for arriving at a subjective satisfaction for the need to detain the detenu. Alongwith other material the material furnished by the case in which the detenu had been acquitted by the criminal court is taken into account for the purpose of arriving for the subjective satisfaction for the need to detain the detenu such subjective satisfaction cannot be faulted on the ground that the detaining authority has considered the cases in which the detenu has been acquitted by the criminal court. The purpose of criminal Trial and the purpose of detention order are two distinct and separate purposes. In a criminal trial the trial is held as per the procedural law where the accused is given an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and adduce his evidence. In preventive detention that is not the position. In criminal trial many a time the accused are acquitted not because the prosecution case is false but because the witnesses for one reason or the other do not come forward to support the prosecution story. However that would not be sufficient to say that the criminal cases in which the detenu was tried in past if they have ended in acquittal the facts of those cases can never be taken into account by the detaining authority for the purpose of reaching a subjective satisfaction for the need to detain the detenu. It is not the case before us that the detaining authority in the present case has acted only on the material furnished by the case in which the detenu was acquitted. Therefore we do not propose to examine the abstract question whether on the sole material furnished by the cases in which the basis for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority for the need to detain the detenu. In the present case besides the record of the Sessions Case wherein the detenu was acquitted the records of three other cases were also before the detaining authority and three statements of the witnesses were also before the detaining authority. On the totality of these material in our opinion the detaining authority was fully justified in reaching the conclusion that the detenu was dangerous person. On the totality of these material in our opinion the detaining authority was fully justified in reaching the conclusion that the detenu was dangerous person. ( 19 ) THE second requirement for passing the order of detention on the ground that the person is a dangerous person is that the detaining authority must be satisfied that the activities of the detenu have prejudicial affected the maintenance of public order and with a view to preventing him from so acting in future it is necessary to detain him. Such satisfaction of the detaining authority as has been a pithly enunciated by Their Lordships to the Supreme Court in the case of Malwa Shaw v. The State of West Bengal AIR 1974 S. C. 957 (at page 950) has to be founded only on a reasonably anticipated prognosis of future be- haviour of the detenu mode on the basis of the past incidents. In the present case the past behavior of the detenu shows that he has been continuously indulging in the commission of crimes punishable under the various sections of the I. P. Code. He had assembled a gang of head-strong persons who moved about with dangerous weapons with them. He and his associates beat innocent people and passers-by in the area of his operation; he and his associates not only extort money from the people but also eat the estables and when the suppliers thereof demanded value thereof he and his associates not only threaten such suppliers with evil consequences but beat them. Even the statements of witnesses lend assurance to the finding of the detaining authority about the aforesaid activities of the detenu. As seen above the third witness in his statement has categorically stated that the detenu is a person who has committed a of 3 murders and has assaulted a number of people by means of knife and the persons in the locality are all trembling on account of the fear emanating from the detenu and the femalefolk are not in a position to move about freely on account of the fear emanating from the detenu nor does anyone dare to go to the police to lodge an information about the activities of the detenu. Without anything more these statements made by this last-mentioned witness would sufficient to enable the detaining authority to reach a subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu have prejudicially affected the maintenance of public order and with a view to preventing the detenu from indulging in such activities in future it is necessary to detain him. ( 20 ) THERE cannot be any straight-jacket (sic.) formula on the basis of which the question whether the facts of a particular case posed a problems of law and order or of public order can be answered. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. . ( 21 ) IT is now well settled that even a single instance involving the detenu in a serious activity could be the fondation for the formation of a subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority for the need to detain the detenu. This is clear from the decision in the case of Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Harvinder Singh Bedi v. State of Maharashtra and Another AIR 1992 S. C. p. 979. In that judgment Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have examined the various earlier judgments of the Supreme Court bearing on the question of maintenance of public order as contra-distinguished from the maintenance of law and order. A bare perusal of those judgments would show that it is the degree and extent of the reach of the objectionable activity upon the society which is vital for considering the question whether a man has committed only a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance to public order. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Considering the facts of the present case from the standpoint of the principles as they emerge from the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Harpreet Kaur v. The State of Maharashtra (supra) it becomes clear that the detenus activities have posed a problem for the maintenance of public order. It is not as if the detenus activities have adversely affected only few specified individuals and have created problem for the police in the maintenance of law and order. Harpreet Kaur v. The State of Maharashtra (supra) it becomes clear that the detenus activities have posed a problem for the maintenance of public order. It is not as if the detenus activities have adversely affected only few specified individuals and have created problem for the police in the maintenance of law and order. His activities are widespread and they had reached the potentiality of affecting the society in the area of his operations as a whole adversely and prejudicially. As is seen above not only that the witnesses and the victim dared not to go to the police to lodge an information about the objectionable activities of the detenu but when some people dared their mouths came to be gagged by the detenu with the result that they turned hostile in the sessions case leading to the acquittal of the detenu in a serious case of murder. This would show the impact of the activities of the detenu in the society at large. His prejudicial activities have almost scared many a people in the society in that area of his operations. As stated by the last witness on account of the fear emanating from the detenu people in the area are trembling and femalefolk are not in a position to move about freely on account of the fear emanating from the detenu. This in our opinion in itself would be sufficient to enable the detaining authority to reach the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu have prejudicially affected the maintenance of public order and that there is need to detain him under the provisions of the PASA Act for the purpose of preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. That he is a dangerous person within the meaning of that expression as defined in the PASA Act is amply borne out from the material that was there before the detaining authority. Having considered the matter from all relevant angles we are just not impressed by the argument of Mr. Rao that this is a case where the alleged activities of the detenu have posed the problem only of maintenance of law and order and not of public order. The first submission of Mr. Rao is therefore rejected. ( 22 ) MR. rao nextly submitted that the statements of witnesses and the grounds of detention are vague. Rao that this is a case where the alleged activities of the detenu have posed the problem only of maintenance of law and order and not of public order. The first submission of Mr. Rao is therefore rejected. ( 22 ) MR. rao nextly submitted that the statements of witnesses and the grounds of detention are vague. The argument is required to be stated merely for being rejected. In connection with the consideration of the first submission of Mr. Rao we have excerpted from the statements of the witnesses and the grounds of detention. We do not find any vagueness therein. In the first paragraph of their statements the three witnesses have in general terms described the activities of the detenu. In the second paragraph of each of the statements the concerned witness has referred to the specific instances showing the activities of the detenu and the area of operation of the detenu is specified in general terms. The approximate time at which the detenu acted is indicated. The precise nature of his activities has been given. Therefore we do not find any vagueness in either of the statements of the witnesses or in the grounds of detention. The second submission of Mr. Rao therefore should not detain us any further. We reject that submission. ( 23 ) THE aforesaid were the only submission made by Mr. Rao L. A. for the petitioner. None of them has any substance. The petition is therefore summarily rejected. Petition summarily rejected. .