A. S. NAIDU, J. ( 1 ) THIS Habeas corpus writ application has been filed challenging the order of detention dated 13-2-2000 passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack, in exercise of powers conferred upon him by sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter REFERRED TO as 'the Act') with a view to prevent Raja alias Sandeep Acharya (hereinafter REFERRED TO as 'the detenu') from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In pursuance of the said order, the detenu was arrested on 2-7-2000 and was detained at Circle Jail, Cuttack at Choudwar. ( 2 ) THE grounds of detention were served upon the detenu on 13-2-2000. The said grounds, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ application, reveal that the District Magistrate, Cuttack has been subjectively satisfied, after due application of mind, that the detenu was creating havoc in Malgodown Police Station area of Cuttack city by indulging in anti-social activities and thereby adversely affecting public peace and order. It is stated that the appearance of the detenu in the locality itself makes the people panic stricken inasmuch as the detenu did not allow peace loving citizens to carry on their normal avocation. Though the detenue was arrested and forwarded to custody in several cases, his anti-social activities had not reduced and as soon as the detenu comes out on bail, he indulges in committing further offences and that too, more vigorously. ( 3 ) INSTANCES of several occurrences/incidents/overt acts in which the detenu was involved have been cited in the grounds of detention. The said incidents relate to Malgodown P. S. Case No. 47 dated 15-4-99, under Sections 302/294/34, IPC read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, Malgodown P. S. Case No. 97 dated 20-7-99, under Sections 307/34 IPC/9 (b) I. E. Act/25/27 of the Arms Act and Malgodown P. S. Station Diary Entry No. 514 dated 24-1-2000. It is also stated that soon after being released from jail on 15-1-2000 in connection with Malgodown P. S. Case No. 97 dated 20-7-1999, the detenu again reverted back to his anti-social activities and terrorised the shop-keepers of College square and tried to intimidate and extract money from the shop-keepers of the locality. It is also stated that soon after being released from jail on 15-1-2000 in connection with Malgodown P. S. Case No. 97 dated 20-7-1999, the detenu again reverted back to his anti-social activities and terrorised the shop-keepers of College square and tried to intimidate and extract money from the shop-keepers of the locality. It is also stated in the grounds that the detenu has established himself as a hired killer and extortionist by creating sense of fear in the minds of peace loving people through his bloody crimes by using deadly weapons and fire-arms. The grounds of detention along with relevant documents were served on 4-7-2000 as the detenu was absconding and was arrested only on 2-7-2000. ( 4 ) THE State Government on 25-8-2000, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 12 (1) of the Act, affirmed the detention order and directed that the detenu shall continue in detention for 12 months in the Circle Jail, Sambalpur. The detenu submitted his representation on 31-7-2000 to the Superintendent of Police praying for setting aside the order of detention. The same was forwarded by the District Magistrate, Cuttack on 3-8-2000 and was received by the Home (SS) Department on 4-8-2000. Parawise comments on the representation prepared by the District Magistrate, Cuttack was received by the State Government on 5-8-2000. It is averred in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opp. party No. 1-State Government, sworn to by the Under Secretary to the Government of Orissa, (Home Department), that the representation along with comments and other relevant documents were examined at different level as per the official procedure and was placed before the Chief Minister on 8-8-2000 for consideration. The Chief Minister after due consideration, rejected the representation on 16-8-2000 and the said rejection order was communicated to the detenu through the District Magistrate, Cuttack on 18-8-2000. A counter-affidavit has also been filed by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. It is averred that the representation dated 31-7-2000 made by the detenu along with parawise comments of the detaining authority was received by the Central Government on 14-8-2000. The representation was immediately processed through different authorities and the same was rejected on 16-8-2000. It is specifically submitted that the representation was attended with utmost promptitude. It is averred that the representation dated 31-7-2000 made by the detenu along with parawise comments of the detaining authority was received by the Central Government on 14-8-2000. The representation was immediately processed through different authorities and the same was rejected on 16-8-2000. It is specifically submitted that the representation was attended with utmost promptitude. ( 5 ) IN course of hearing, Shri B. N. Panda, learned counsel for the detenu made a faint attempt before us to contend that the grounds of detention served on the detenu did not disclose any material relevant under Section 3 of the Act. Perusal of the grounds of detention and the activities of the detenu narrated therein, reveals that there is absolutely no scope at all for urging such a contention, in the present case. The imputation against the detenu prima facie reveals that he was indulging in anti-social activities and made it a practice to attack and assault persons by using fire-arms in presence of large number of people in busy areas to create a sense of fear so that they would be panicked at his presence and pay 'dada Bati' on demand. The submission that the detenu was acquitted in most of the cases cited in the grounds of detention, on scrutiny, found to be not correct inasmuch as the criminal cases arising out of Malgodown P. S. Case No. 47 dated 15-4-99, Malgodown P. S. Case No. 97 dated 20-7-99 are still pending. Shri Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the cases REFERRED TO by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention being old and the detenu having been released on bail, the order of detention is invalid. In support of the said contention, Shri Panda relied upon the decisions in the case of (Lakshman Khatik v. The State of West Bengal), 1974 Cri LR (SC) 370 : (1974 Cri LJ 936) and Kamalkar Prasad Chaturvedi v. The State of M. P. , AIR 1984 SC 211 : (1983 Cri LJ 1928 ). Shri Debasis Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate, at the other hand, relying upon the decision in the case of Shiv Ratan Makim v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 610 : (1986 Cri LJ 813) submitted that even if a criminal prosecution fails, there is no bar to pass an order of detention under the Act. Shri Debasis Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate, at the other hand, relying upon the decision in the case of Shiv Ratan Makim v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 610 : (1986 Cri LJ 813) submitted that even if a criminal prosecution fails, there is no bar to pass an order of detention under the Act. The Apex Court in the case of Shiv Ratan Makim (supra) observed that the object of making an order of detention is preventive while the object of a criminal prosecution is punitive. Even if a criminal prosecution fails and an order of detention is then made, it would not invalidate the order of detention, because the purpose of preventive detention being different from conviction and punishment; subjective satisfaction being necessary in the former, while proof beyond reasonable doubt being necessary in the latter, the order of detention would not be bad merely because the criminal prosecution had failed. The same view was also expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Subrati v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1973 SC 207 : (1974 Cri LJ 397 ). It was pointed out by the Apex Court in that case that the Act creates in the Authority concerned a new jurisdiction to make orders for preventive detention on their subjective satisfaction on grounds of suspicion of commission in future of acts prejudicial to the community in general. This jurisdiction is different from that of judicial trial in Courts for offences and/or of judicial orders for prevention of offences. Even an unsuccessful judicial trial or proceeding would, therefore, not operate as bar to a detention order or render it mala fide. ( 6 ) THE second point raised by Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that there being inordinate delay in disposing of the representation submitted by the detenu and no explanation having been offered by the State Government, the order of detention should be quashed, as there is clear violation of spirit of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that in the present case there is unexplained delay of 15 days in consideration of the representation filed by the detenu, which clearly reveals negligence, callousness, inaction, avoidable red-tapism and protracted procrastination of the State Government to deal with the representation. It is submitted that in the present case there is unexplained delay of 15 days in consideration of the representation filed by the detenu, which clearly reveals negligence, callousness, inaction, avoidable red-tapism and protracted procrastination of the State Government to deal with the representation. In support of the aforesaid contention, Shri Panda cited a decision in the case of Saras Kumar Mohanty v. State of Orissa, (1995) 4 Cur Cri R 193 : (1996 Cri LJ 1017 ). Relying upon a decision in the case of Smt. Toijam v. State of Manipur, (2000) 2 Cur Cri R 507, it is further submitted that time moves on each minute and second. Each instant is precious. Those who guard the liberty of a citizen are to live in each moment. Thus, delay in disposal of the representation is fatal. Mr. Panda also relied upon the decisions in the cases of Rama Dhondu Borde v. V. K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police, 1989 SCC (Cri) 520 : ( 1989 0 Crlj 2119 ), Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal, 1970 SCC (Cri) 92 : (1970 Cri LJ 743), Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1982 SCC (Cri) 348 : (1982 Cri LJ 988), Narinder Singh Suri v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 945 : (1980 Cri LJ 683), in support of his contention that a duty has been cast on the Authority who detained a particular person, to explain the delay of each and every day since it is a matter which is connected with liberty of a citizen. In case the Authority fails to explain the delay in consideration of the representation of the detenu, his detention would become illegal and invalid. Every person has got a fundamental right to get his representation considered with promptitude at the end of the detaining authority. Non-consideration of the representation of the petitioner with promptitude is violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. ON the other hand, Shri Das, learned Addl. Every person has got a fundamental right to get his representation considered with promptitude at the end of the detaining authority. Non-consideration of the representation of the petitioner with promptitude is violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. ON the other hand, Shri Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate relying upon the decisions in the cases of Smt. Panna, w/o Pandharinath L. Waringe v. A. S. Samra, AIR 1994 SC 1274 : (1994 Cri LJ 1111), State of Punjab v. Sukhpal Singh, AIR 1990 SC 231 : (1990 Cri LJ 584), Babula alias Ajit Pal v. State of Orissa, 1995 Cri LJ 307 (Orissa) and Kantilal Harji Shaj v. State of T. N. , (2000) 7 SCC 606 , has submitted that merely because there was delay in disposal of representation, no inference of slackness, callousness or inaction can be attributed to the Authority. It is further submitted that the holidays intervening between the period and the manner in which the representation has been dealt with by the Authority concerned, is very much material to be considered while assessing the reasonableness of the delay. ( 7 ) WE have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length. We have also carefully gone through the averments made in the writ application and counter-affidavits filed by the different authorities. In our opinion, the question whether the representation submitted by a detenu has been dealt with all reasonable promptitude and diligence is to be decided not by the application of any rigid or inflexible rule or set formula nor by a mere arithmetical counting of dates, but by careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of each case. If on such examination, it is found that there was any remissness, indifference or avoidable delay on the part of the detaining authority/state Government, in dealing with the representation, it will undoubtedly be treated as a factor vitiating the continued detention of the detenu. On the other hand, if the Court is satisfied that the delay was occasioned not by any lack of diligence or promptness of attention on the part of the party concerned, but due to unavoidable circumstances or reasons entirely beyond his control, such delay will not be treated as furnishing a ground for the grant of relief to the detenu against his continued detention ( AIR 1984 SC 46 may be seen ). ( 8 ) KEEPING in mind the ratio of the decisions narrated above, we have once again scanned through the averments made and other materials available in the records of the case and at the cost of repetition, repeat the chronological events once again for better appreciation. Admittedly, the detenu submitted his representation on 31-7-2000 before the Superintendent of Jail. The said representation was forwarded by the District Magistrate by his letter dated 3-8-2000 to the Home (SS) Department of the State Government and was received by the latter on 4-8-2000. Parawise comments on the representation was prepared by the District Magistrate and the same were also sent to the Home Department and received by them on 5-8-2000. The representation along with the comments was examined at various level and was placed before the Chief Minister on 8-8-2000 for consideration. Admittedly, the Chief Minister after due consideration, was pleased to reject the same on 16-8-2000. Shri Panda, learned counsel for the detenu took exception of the fact that the representation was pending before the Chief Minister from 8-8-2000 till 16-8-2000 i. e. for a period of 8 days. According to Shri Panda, the said delay can be nomenclatured as "inordinate delay" and as the State Government has not acted with utmost promptitude as required to be done by them under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution, the order of detention should be quashed. A further counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opp. party No. 1 stating that the representation which was forwarded by the Home Department on 8-8-2000 was received in the office of the Chief Minister on 8-8-2000, 12th and 13th August, 2000 were holidays being second Saturday and Sunday respectively; 15th August was the Indpendence Day and the Chief Minister being otherwise busy, could not effectively apply his mind to the representation and eventually disposed of the same on 16-8-2000. Thus, there was absolutely no delay and the matter was dealt with utmost promptitude. The Apex Court in the case of Kantilal Harji Shah (supra) held :"taking into account the facts that holidays intervened in between, and the manner in which the representation has been dealt with by the authority concerned, we must hold that the representation has been dealt with utmost expedition and there has been no delay in the matter of disposal of the representation. " ( 9 ) WE feel satisfied, on our perusal of the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opp. parties, that the detenu's representation has been dealt with by the authorities as expeditiously as possible and the allegation of inordinate delay levelled by the petitioner is baseless. We are further satisfied that there was no avoidable delay on the part of the administration in disposing of the representation filed by the detenu. The Central Government has also disposed of the representation filed by the detenu with utmost promptitude, as would be evident from the counter filed. In this view of the matter, the second contention raised by the petitioner is also, therefore, devoid of any substance. ( 10 ) THE conclusion that emerges with the foregoing discussions is that there is no ground whatsoever justifying interference with the order of detention passed against the petitioner and the writ application is, therefore, only to be dismissed. THE writ application is dismissed. ( 11 ) PRADIPTA RAY, J. : -. I agree. Petition dismissed.