JUDGMENT- R.G. VAIDYANATHA, J. :--- This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the detention of the petitioner under the National Security Act, 1980. Rule was issued. Respondents have filed their returns. 2.The petitioner came to be detained by a detention order dated 18th May, 1995 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, under the provisions of section 3(2) of the National Security Act. The grounds of detention were furnished to the petitioner. He had made a representation to the Central Government against the order of detention. The Central Government rejected the representation. Hence the petitioner has filed this petition challenging his detention on many grounds. 3.The grounds of detention show that the petitioner has been ordered to be detained under the Act in question because of his prejudicial and terrorist activities as detailed in the grounds of detention. It is alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner and his henchmen are criminals indulging in terrorist activities and have become potential danger to the safety of peace loving and law abiding citizens of the areas and localities of Prabhat Colony, Seva Nagar, Chakki Khan and other areas of Bombay. It is also alleged that the petitioner and his associates have been moving openly in the areas with arms like choppers, revolvers, swords, knives etc. They are indulging in committing offences like extortion, assault, abduction, robbery, criminal intimidation, molestation of women etc. In particular, the grounds of detention show certain specified acts against the detenu. It is alleged that on 16th January, 1995, the petitioner and his associates being armed with weapons, in particular petitioner being armed with a revolver went to the house of Mangesh Khedekar. They knocked the door of the house of said Mangesh and on his opening the door, all of them entered his house and started assaulting the said Mangesh with weapons in their hands. The said Mangesh was mercilessly beaten. Then when some people came there, the petitioner and his associates ran away. Mangesh was admitted to hospital for treatment. It is also alleged that on the complaint of Mangesh, the police have registered a case in C.R. No. 57 of 1995 for offences punishable under sections 323 and 324 read with section 34 I.P.C. In the said case, the petitioner came to be arrested on 27th February, 1995. His associates were arrested earlier. It is also alleged that on the complaint of Mangesh, the police have registered a case in C.R. No. 57 of 1995 for offences punishable under sections 323 and 324 read with section 34 I.P.C. In the said case, the petitioner came to be arrested on 27th February, 1995. His associates were arrested earlier. It is also stated that on 6th March, 1995, the learned Magistrate passed an order granting bail to the petitioner, but the petitioner has not yet availed the order of bail. It is alleged that on 15th February, 1995, in another incident, the petitioner being armed with a gupti and a sword and his associates also armed with weapons approached one Dhanji Maharaj and threatened him by pointing out a knife and demanded money. When Dhanji pleaded helplessness, the petitioner and his associates pulled him out of the shop and then assaulted him with fists and kicks. When one Kanhaiyalal tried to intervene, one of the petitioner's associates assaulted him with a sword and caused a bleeding injury to him. When another shop-keeper Bhailal tried to intervene, he was also assaulted with a sword. The whole area due to this incident was gripped with fear and tension. The pedestrians got scared and started running helter-skelter. The customers in the neighbouring shops took to their heels. The shopkeepers in the area pulled down their shutters. The tempo of the life of citizens in that area was badly affected. It is also alleged that the petitioner and his associates forcibly removed Dhanji Maharaj to another place and forcibly took Rs. 1500/- from his shirt pocket. When the police van came there, the petitioner and his associates ran away after assaulting Dhanji Maharaj. In that connections the police have registered a case in C.R.No. 153 of 1995 of Vakola Police Station for offences under sections 363, 397 and 324 I.P.C. and also for an offence under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. A confidential enquiry and been made against the petitioner and his associates. Some witnesses had been examined in camera who have spoken about unlawful activities of the petitioner and his associates. In view of these allegations, the Commissioner of Police has passed the order in question stating that the detention of the petitioner in custody is necessary to prevent him from acting prejudicially to the welfare of the people. Some witnesses had been examined in camera who have spoken about unlawful activities of the petitioner and his associates. In view of these allegations, the Commissioner of Police has passed the order in question stating that the detention of the petitioner in custody is necessary to prevent him from acting prejudicially to the welfare of the people. 4.At the time of hearing of this petition Mr. Tripathi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, raised two points in support of the petition. The first ground of attack is that there is undue and inordinate delay in the execution of the order of detention, and therefore, it is bad in law. The second ground urged was that the Central Government has mechanically rejected the petitioner's representation without application of mind. It was, therefore, argued that the order of detention is bad and liable to be quashed. On the other hand, Mrs. Ranjana Desai, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Maharashtra and Mr. Mehta, appearing for the Central Government, supported the impugned order of detention and controverted the above two points. 5.As far as the first point is concerned, the argument is based on the fact that the order of detention is dated 18-5-1995, and it came to be executed on 15th June, 1995, and therefore, there was delay of 28 days. Mr. Tripathi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that in view of this delay in execution of the order of detention the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority no longer survives and it is a farce and on this ground the detention order is liable to be quashed. He invited our attention to three authorities on this point. In 1975(3) Supreme Court Cases 395, (S.K. Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal)1, it was a case of the detenu being a free man and there was a delay of 2½ months in executing the order of detention and no explanation was forthcoming from the State about the delay in execution of the order. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court held that there was inordinate delay in the execution of the order which throws considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate recited in the order of detention. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court held that there was inordinate delay in the execution of the order which throws considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate recited in the order of detention. In fact, at page 397 the Apex Court has made the position clear in the following words :--- "Of course when we say this we must not be understood to mean that whenever there is delay in arresting the detenu pursuant to the order of detention, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be held to be not genuine or enforceable. Each case must depend on its own peculiar facts and circumstances." Therefore, it is a question of fact which has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case whether there is delay, whether there is explanation for the delay and whether delay has affected the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. In 1990 Cr.L.R. (S.C.) 81, (Shafiq Ahmed v. District Magistrate, Meerut and others)2, it was again a case of undue delay in the execution of the order of detention. The order of detention was dated 15th April, 1988 and came to be executed six months later on 2nd October, 1988. The State had given some explanation about the detenu being absconding only during one or two months. There was no explanation as to what attempts were made to trace the detenu in the remaining months. In those circumstances it was ruled by the Apex Court that there is no satisfactory explanation about delay in the execution of the detention order and hence it was struck down. In 1992(1) Crime 166 (S.C.), (P.V. Iqbal v. Union of India and others)3, it was a case of delay of one year in executing the order of detention after passing of the detention order. On facts, it was found that no prompt and continuous effort was made to secure the detenu and serve the order. Since it was a case of unreasonable and unexplained delay in securing the detenu, it was held that the detention order is vitiated. In our view, all the above three cases depend on their own facts and circumstances. 6.On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State invited our attention to three authorities on this point. Since it was a case of unreasonable and unexplained delay in securing the detenu, it was held that the detention order is vitiated. In our view, all the above three cases depend on their own facts and circumstances. 6.On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State invited our attention to three authorities on this point. In A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 728, (Suresh Mahato v. District Magistrate, Burdwan)4, it was a case of delay of more than one month in executing the order of detention and it was held in the circumstances of the case that it is not an inordinate delay so as to quash the order of detention. In 1992 Cri.L.J. 2460, (Uday T. Valia v. Mahendra Prasad, Joint Secretary)5, it was again a case of delay of 1½ months and it was held that it was not a case of inordinate delay so as to vitiate the order of detention. In A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1446, (Abdul Salam v. Union of India)6, it was again a case of 2½ months delay in execution of the order of detention and it was found not to be an unreasonable delay so as to vitiate the order of detention. 7.From the above discussion, we find that the law is well settled that delay by itself is no ground to quash the detention order. The question is whether delay is so inordinate or long so as to vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. It is also well settled that each case must depend on its own facts and circumstances. No thumb rule can be laid down that delay of one month or two months or three months vitiates an order of detention. In one case, delay of 15 days or one month may vitiate an order but in another case same delay may not vitiate an order of detention. It all depends on peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, delay is about 28 days from the date of detention order and the date of actual detention of the petitioner. Here, the petitioner was not a free man. He was in custody. His bail application had been rejected in one case and granted in other case. The detaining authority was well aware that the petitioner is in custody and in future he will apply for bail. Here, the petitioner was not a free man. He was in custody. His bail application had been rejected in one case and granted in other case. The detaining authority was well aware that the petitioner is in custody and in future he will apply for bail. The order of detention had been executed while the petitioner was still in custody. Hence it cannot be said that because of these few days delay in actual execution of the order, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority has been vitiated in any manner. After carefully and anxiously applying our mind to the facts of the present case we are not impressed by the argument on behalf of the petitioner that there is any unreasonable delay or even if there is some delay it vitiates the order of detention. Hence the first point is rejected. 8.Now coming to the second point, the learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that he is not on the point of delay in considering the representation made by the petitioner to the Central Government, but his grievance is that there is non-application of mind by the Central Government and the representation has been rejected mechanically. We are afraid we cannot accept even this contention. The affidavit of Mr. Ishwar Singh, Desk Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, says that after receiving the representation of the petitioner, wireless message was sent to the State Government and the Commissioner of Police asking for particulars. Then after particulars were received, they were considered by all the concerned officers and ultimately the Home Minister rejected the representation on 30-11-1995. Then we also have an affidavit of Mr. R.D. Tyagi, Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. On this point, he has stated as follows :--- "2.With reference to additional ground 3(b) of the petition, I say that representation dated 6-11-1995 submitted on behalf of the detenu, was received in my office on 15-11-1995. After careful scrutiny of the representation and after scrutiny of the record of the case, parawise comments were prepared and forwarded to the Central Government on 24-11-1995." Similarly, Mr. M.D. Ambade, Desk Officer, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai, has stated about this fact in para 2 of his additional affidavit. After careful scrutiny of the representation and after scrutiny of the record of the case, parawise comments were prepared and forwarded to the Central Government on 24-11-1995." Similarly, Mr. M.D. Ambade, Desk Officer, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai, has stated about this fact in para 2 of his additional affidavit. He has stated that after receiving the wireless message dated 14-11-1995 from the Central Government about the representation of the petitioner dated 6-11-1995, the State Government sent parawise comments on the representation and the factual information regarding the detention, the grounds of detention etc. on 16-11-1995. It is, therefore, seen that both the Commissioner of Police and the State Government have furnished all the necessary details to the Central Government. The officers of the Central Government and the Home Minister have considered the representation of the detenu in the light of the remarks received from the State Government and the Commissioner of Police and rejected the representation of the petitioner. Hence it cannot be said that it is a case of the Central Government acting without getting any facts or rejecting the representation mechanically without applying their mind. In our view, the representation of the detenu has been rejected by the Central Government on merits and it cannot be called as mechanical or otherwise invalid. No other grounds were urged before us. In our view, the detention order is perfectly justified and does not call for interference by this Court. 9.In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. Petition dismissed. *****