JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J. :---By means of this petition referred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/detenu has impugned the detention order dated 19th January 1996 passed by respondent No. 1 by virtue of the powers vested in him under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, read with Government Order Home Department, (Special) No. N.S.A. 2395/1/SPL-3(B) dated 20th November 1995, detaining him under the National Security Act. 2.Prejudicial activities of the detenu necessitating the issuance of the detention order are contained in the grounds of detention bearing the same date as the order of detention. Both the order of detention and the grounds of detention were served on the detenu on 20-1-1996. Briefly stated the grounds read thus :- Criminal record of the petitioner shows that he has taken to a life of crime and has formed his own gang. Alongwith members of his gang he has been indulging in terrorising activities resulting in his becoming a potential danger to the safety of law abiding and peace loving citizens of the localities of B.I.T. Chawl, Mumbai Central, Bellasis Road, Kamathi Pura, M.R. Road, Nagpada and areas adjoining thereto falling within the jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station in Mumbai. In the grounds of detention there is a reference to 4 C.Rs. against the petitioner. The first of them viz., C.R. No. 303 of 1995 under section 387 read with 34 I.P.C. of Police Station, Nagapada was registered against the petitioner and his four associates on 4-6-95 on the basis of the complaint filed by Narayan Bhadegaonkar. The allegations in the said C.R. are that on 30-5-95 at about 9.30 p.m. when the informant was working alone in the office of Ramdarshan Co-operative Housing Society at Mumbai Central, of which he is the Secretary, a messenger came and told him that he was wanted in Building No. 17. Thereafter the informant along with the treasurer and members of the committee went and saw the petitioner who was in a room in the ground floor of building No. 17 of B.I.T. Chawl. The petitioner informed the informant and others that they should pay amounts ranging between Rs. 15,000/- to 20,000/- as their share in the transaction of housing society. He also threatened to kill them if they did not pay. The petitioner informed the informant and others that they should pay amounts ranging between Rs. 15,000/- to 20,000/- as their share in the transaction of housing society. He also threatened to kill them if they did not pay. In the said C.R. during interrogation the petitioner admitted his involvement and on 19-6-95 was granted bail, and he availed of the bail facility on 9-8-1995. In the said case the petitioner has been charge sheeted vide C.C. No. 421/P/95 dated 29-6-95. The second C.R. against the petitioner and his associates viz., C.R. No. 544 of 95 under section 326 read with 34 I.P.C. arises out of an F.I.R. lodged at Nagpada Police Station against the petitioner and his associates by one Manu Waghela. The allegation in the said C.R. is that on 9-9-95 at about 5.30 p.m. while the informant was going to G.T. Hospital, the petitioner's messenger one Pandu met him near Laxmi Hotel, B.I.T. Chawl and told him that the petitioner had summoned him in B.I.T. Chawl No. 17. Kanhu Waghela (informant) went to B.I.T. Chawl No. 17. First the petitioner told him that he was informer of the police and thereafter he and his associate Laxman started assaulting him with a stick. None came to his rescue as people were scared of the petitioner. In the said C.R. it is also alleged that at about 7.00 p.m. again Kanhu Waghela and one Mahesh Jayantilal Solanki were assaulted in a room in B.I.T. Chawl with sticks. In C.R. No. 544 of 95 the petitioner was arrested on 13-9-95. During the investigation he admitted his involvement. On 22-9-95 he was released on bail with a condition to report daily at Nagpada Police Station and he availed of the bail facility on 5-10-95. The third C.R. No. 645 of 95 under section 506 (2) of I.P.C. was registered on 19-12-95 at Nagapada Police Station against the petitioner on the report lodged by one Devendra Singh. In the said F.I.R. it is stated that 15 days prior to 19-12-95 one Satyanarayan Yadav told Devendra Singh that the petitioner had summoned him. On 17-10-95 the said message was reconveyed to Devendra Singh. On 18-12-95 Devendra Singh visited B.I.T. Chawl wherein the petitioner told him that he wanted to buy his flour mill at Rs. In the said F.I.R. it is stated that 15 days prior to 19-12-95 one Satyanarayan Yadav told Devendra Singh that the petitioner had summoned him. On 17-10-95 the said message was reconveyed to Devendra Singh. On 18-12-95 Devendra Singh visited B.I.T. Chawl wherein the petitioner told him that he wanted to buy his flour mill at Rs. 1/- more than what he had paid for it and when Devendra Singh did not accede to the petitioner's demand he threatened him saying that he would have the flour mill closed and kill him. In the said C.R. the petitioner was arrested on 10-12-95. He was granted bail but he did not avail of the same. The last C.R. viz., 646 of 95 under section 363, 392, 395, 397 of I.P.C. arises out of an F.I.R. lodged at Nagpada Police Station on 10-10-95 by one Manilal Thakkar. The allegation therein is that on 17-10-95 at 11-45 hrs. while the informant and his brother Popatlal and servants were present in the Jewellery shop known as Thakkar Jewellers, Shop No. 6 Gangubai Kanji Chawl, Lane No. 10, Kamathipura, Mumbai the associates of the petitioner told the inmates of the shop that they were members of the gang and showed Manilal something which was blackish in colour and asked him to accompany him to the petitioner's office. They went there. The associate of the petitioner Suresh Bhim told Manilal and Popatlal that he belongs to the petitioner's gang and made a demand of Rs. 25 lakhs. The associate of the petitioner Madan Dadhi with a chopper in his hand forced him to agree to pay the said amount. It is also alleged that thereafter Suresh Bhim took Manilal and Popatlal to the first floor of the building No. 13 and Suresh Bhim contacted the petitioner on phone. The petitioner disclosed his identity to Manilal and asked him to part with the amount demanded by Suresh Bhim. He also threatened Manilal that in case he did not make the payment dire consequences would ensue. One of the associates of the petitioner threatened Manilal and asked him to pay Rs. 50,000/-. Manilal after consulting his brother Popatlal agreed to pay Rs. 30,000/-. On returning to the jewellery shop, Popatlal paid Rs. 20,000/- to Madan Dadhi the associate of the petitioner. The petitioner's associate Suresh Bhim on telephone asked Manilal to pay the balance of Rs. 10,000/-. 50,000/-. Manilal after consulting his brother Popatlal agreed to pay Rs. 30,000/-. On returning to the jewellery shop, Popatlal paid Rs. 20,000/- to Madan Dadhi the associate of the petitioner. The petitioner's associate Suresh Bhim on telephone asked Manilal to pay the balance of Rs. 10,000/-. Manilal sent Rs. 5,000/- through a servant at the residence of the petitioner. 3.In the grounds of the detention the detaining authority has also shown his awareness to the fact that the petitioner has not been released on bail in C.R. No. 646 of 95 but has alleged that he has reason to believe that he may be granted bail in it and consequently may be released from custody and thereafter he was likely to revert to similar criminal activities thus prejudicing maintenance of public order in the said areas of Bombay. 4.On the basis of the aforesaid material the detaining authority (respondent No. 1) has concluded that the petitioner was likely to revert to similar criminal activities prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order and hence his detention under National Security Act, 1980 was imperative with a view to prevent him from committing such activities. 5.In the grounds of detention the petitioner was also apprised of his right of making representation to the various authorities. 6.We have heard Mr. S.R. Chitnis for the petitioner, Mrs. Vijaya Kapse Tahilramani for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. J.C. Satpute for respondent No. 4. Mr. S.R. Chitnis learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the detention order on three grounds. 7.The first ground of attack of Mr. Chitnis is contained as ground (f) in para 10 of the petition and in substance is that there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the Central Government in considering the representation of the petitioner which was sent on or about 9-3-96. The contention of Mr. Chitnis is that in the right of the petitioner to make a representation at the earliest opportunity, under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, is also implicit a corresponding obligation on the respondent No. 4 (Union of India) to consider the representation and to dispose off the same at the earliest opportunity. The said ground has been replied to in the affidavit filed by Ishwarsingh, Desk Officer of the Ministry of Home, Government of India. The said ground has been replied to in the affidavit filed by Ishwarsingh, Desk Officer of the Ministry of Home, Government of India. In para 6 it is stated that the representation was filed on 12-3-96 on behalf of the detenu (petitioner) and was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 18-3-96. The representation was immediately processed. It was realised that certain vital information was required from the State Government/Commissioner of Police (respondents No. 1 and 2) and a crash wireless message was sent to the said authorities on the same date. The requisite information was received by the Central Government, in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 3-4-96 vide letter of Commissioner of Police, Mumbai dated 1-4-96. On receiving the said information the detenu's case was put up before the Deputy Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs on 4-4-96 and after carefully considering the same along with his comments, he forwarded the same to the Joint Secretary, that very day. After considering the matter the Joint Secretary forwarded the same to the Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 8-4-96. The Special Secretary considered the matter that very day and forwarded it to the Home Minister, Government of India who after considering the same rejected the representation of the detenu on 9-4-96. In this connection it would be pertinent to point out that the grievance of Mr. Chitnis that along with the crash wireless message sent by the Central Government to the State Government/Commissioner of Police, a copy of the representation of the petitioner was not sent, appears to be misconceived. The original file was shown to us by Mrs. Tahilramani and the same bears out that it was sent. Hence the first contention of Mr. Chitnis fails. 8.The second contention of Mr. Chitnis is that the impugned order of detention is mala fide. This contention is contained in the grounds O, P, and Q of para 10 of the petition. The averment of Mr. Chitnis in ground "O" is that the C.R. No. 303 of 95 of Nagpada Police Station referred to as ground No. (iii)(a)(i) in the grounds of detention was subject matter of Chapter Case No. 15 of 95 and Court Case No. 28 of 95, being a notice under section 111 Cr. The averment of Mr. Chitnis in ground "O" is that the C.R. No. 303 of 95 of Nagpada Police Station referred to as ground No. (iii)(a)(i) in the grounds of detention was subject matter of Chapter Case No. 15 of 95 and Court Case No. 28 of 95, being a notice under section 111 Cr. P.C. The said notice was challenged by the petitioner in this Court through a writ petition and on 20th July 1995 this Court was pleased to release the petitioner on a personal bond of Rs. 1000/-. Thereafter on 18th January 1996, while the said writ petition was pending in this Court, the show cause notice under section 111 Cr. P.C. was withdrawn with the oblique motive of issuing a detention order which was issued the very next day i.e. 19th January 1996. 9.The question of mala fides is always a thorny one to decide. Whether in a given case a order is mala fide or not has to be decided in the context of facts and circumstances of that case. The existence or absence of mala fides in a given case is a matter of inference and that inference is to be deduced from the peculiar facts of that case. We are fortified in our view by the observations of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 631 (Thakur Prasad Bania v. State of Bihar)1. In para 2, Their Lordships have observed thus :- "The question of mala fides has got to be decided as one of fact with reference to all the circumstances of an individual case." When we examine the said contention of Mr. Chitnis in the light of the said guidelines given by the Apex Court, we find it to be without merit. 10.Mrs. Tahilramani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor showed us two letters dated 12-11-1995 and 13-12-1995 issued by the Senior Police Inspector, of Nagpada Police Station wherein it has been mentioned that inasmuch as after C.R. No. 303/95 three other C.Rs. have been registered against the petitioner (they have been mentioned in the grounds of detention) proceedings under section 111 Cr.P.C. seem to have yielded no results and as the preventive detention of the petitioner under the National Security Act was being proposed the chapter case arising from the said proceedings which was pending in a writ petition in this Court be withdrawn. The reason disclosed in the letters shown by Mrs. Tahilramani appears to us to be plausible. There is another weakness in the said submission canvassed by Mr. Chitnis. From a perusal of para 38 of the affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 Commissioner of Police, Mumbai it transpires that the proposal for detaining the petitioner under the National Security Act was made on 16-12-95. That being so it cannot be said that on the very next date of withdrawal of notice under section 111 Cr. P.C. the detention order was made and therefore it was mala fide. Our view in rejecting the aforesaid submission is reinforced by the decision of the Apex Court, reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 340, (Sahebsingh Duggal v. Union of India)2. In that case the petitioner was arrested on 6th September 1964. The Investigating Officer made a report to the Court to the effect that the petitioner and others involved in the criminal case might be discharged as sufficient evidence for their conviction could not be procured. The Magistrate consequently discharged the petitioner and others. Immediately after the petitioner came out he was served with the detention order under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules. One of the contentions canvassed before the Apex Court in the petition moved by the petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution, was that the impugned detention order was mala fide. The Apex Court repelling the said contention observed thus :- " We cannot infer merely from the fact that the authorities decided to drop the case under the Official Secrets Act and thereafter to order the detention of the petitioner under the rules that the order of the detention was mala fide." In this connection it would also be pertinent to refer to the oft quoted case of (B.C. Biswas v. State of West Bengal)3, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1850. In that case the ground on which the order of detention was passed, referred to two incidents in which the petitioner and his associates were alleged to have participated. In respect of both the incidents reports were lodged against the petitioner. The Investigating Officer after investigating the two incidents, submitted the report that nothing could be elicited against the petitioner. Consequently the petitioner was discharged. Thereafter a detention order was passed against him. In respect of both the incidents reports were lodged against the petitioner. The Investigating Officer after investigating the two incidents, submitted the report that nothing could be elicited against the petitioner. Consequently the petitioner was discharged. Thereafter a detention order was passed against him. The argument of the petitioner was that in the circumstances the order of detention should be held to be mala fide. While rejecting the said contention, the Apex Court observed :- "In our opinion, even if it may be assumed that cases were registered against the petitioner by the police in respect of the two incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention and the police as a result of the investigation could not procure evidence to sustain the conviction of the petitioner, that fact would not be sufficient to hold that the detention order made against the petitioner was mala fide." 11.For the said reasons we regret that the second contention of Mr. Chitnis is not acceptable. 12.We wish to emphasise that courts should be extremely careful and cautious in raising an inference of mala fides, which in sum and substance means malice on the part of the authority which has passed an order. The inference of mala fides should only be raised when it is an irresistible inference from the facts in a given case. The facts should be so clear, cogent and clinching that they are incapable of any other inference excepting that of mala fides. A hasty inference in respect of mala fides may certainly result in injustice to the authority which has passed the order. 13.There is another leg of the argument of Mr. Chitnis in respect of mala fides namely that the C.R. No. 303 of 1995 which gave rise to the chapter case arising out of the proceedings under section 111 Cr. P.C. and resulted in writ petition in that case is the subject matter of the grounds of detention. We regret that we do not find any merit in the said contention of Mr. Chitnis. We fail to see as to how simply from this circumstances an inference of mala fides can be deduced. We would also like to point out that C.R. No. 303 of 1995 is only one of the grounds on which the detention order is founded. Chitnis. We fail to see as to how simply from this circumstances an inference of mala fides can be deduced. We would also like to point out that C.R. No. 303 of 1995 is only one of the grounds on which the detention order is founded. In the grounds of detention there is also a reference to three other C.Rs, all of which were subsequent to C.R. No. 303 of 1995. The detention order is founded on the said C.Rs. also. Section 5-A of the National Security Act provides that even if some of the grounds are bad and the detention order is sustainable on other grounds it would still be legally good as it would be deemed to be separately passed on each of the ground. We are fortified in our view by the observations made in paragraph 10 of the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1993(2) Bom.C.R. 3 (Prabhakar Menka Shetty v. S.R. Ramamurthy and ors.)4. In the instant case, in our view, the detention order is also sustainable on the three other C.Rs., referred to in the grounds of detention. 14.The third and final contention of Mr. Chitnis is that the proceedings in chapter case arising from the C.R. No. 303 of 1995 and documents in relation to the same were vital documents and their non supply to the petitioner has frustrated his right of making an effective representation under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. In support of this contention Mr. Chitnis invited our attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1524 of 1994 in the case of (Smt. Vihabai Laxishankar Tiwari v. Shri Satish Sahney and ors.)5. To the said decision one of us (A.S. Venkatchala Moorthy, J.) was a party. Inspite of the fact that the said ground has not been pleaded in the present petition we examined it. On the first blush the argument of Mr. Chitnis certainly appeared to be attractive. But its hollowness was exposed when we carefully perused the grounds of detention in the instant case and the judgment rendered by the Bench in the above mentioned case. In the grounds of detention in the instant case there is no mention that while passing the impugned detention order the detaining authority has relied on the material pertaining to the chapter case. In the grounds of detention in the instant case there is no mention that while passing the impugned detention order the detaining authority has relied on the material pertaining to the chapter case. On the other hand a perusal of para 5 of the said Division Bench decision shows that in it the detaining authority, in the grounds of detention had relied on the material in the chapter case and therefore in para 10 the Division Bench concluded that the copies of documents pertaining to the said chapter proceedings which were filed, were relevant documents and as they were not supplied to the detenu, he was frustrated in his right of making an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. In our view the said decision is not applicable on the facts of the present case. 15.Pursuant to the above discussion we are squarely satisfied that there is no merit in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed. In the result this petition is dismissed. Rule issued earlier is discharged. Writ petition dismissed. *****