Judgment :- (Habeas Corpus Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writs of Habeas Corpus, (i) directing the respondents to produce detenu Saravanan, son of Kaliaperumal, who is now confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli, call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.14/N.S.A./2005 dated 30-4-2005 and set aside the same and set the detenu at liberty; and (ii) directing the respondents to produce detenu Subramanian, son of Kaliaperumal, who is now confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli, call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.15/N.S.A/2005 dated 30-4-2005 and set aside the same and set the detenu at liberty.) COMMON ORDER P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioners, namely, Saravanan and Subramanian detained under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act, 1980 and confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli, challenge their respective detention orders in these petitions. 2. The detaining authority, namely, District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, taking note of the fact that one Saravanan (petitioner in H.C.P.No. 153/2005) assaulted police officials on 10-4-2005 and charged for offences under sections 147, 148, 332, 324, 326, 307 I.P.C. read with Section 3 (1) of P.P.D.Act in Crime No. 167/2005 on the file of Ramjinagar Police Station and the subsequent incident that took place on 11-4-2005 for which a case was registered for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C., in Crime No. 169/2005 on the file of the very same Police Station, and after finding that he is an anti-social element and after satisfying that there is compelling necessity to pass an order under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act with a view to prevent him from indulging such prejudicial activities in the future as the normal criminal law did not give the desired effect, detained him in the Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli. In respect of the very same incident/occurrence, the other detenu, namely, Subramanian was also detained under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act. The said detention orders are under challenge in the above writ petitions. 3. Heard Mr. G.R. Edmund, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2; and Mr. Pon Muthuramalingam, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for third respondent. 4. Mr. The said detention orders are under challenge in the above writ petitions. 3. Heard Mr. G.R. Edmund, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2; and Mr. Pon Muthuramalingam, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for third respondent. 4. Mr. G.R. Edmund, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, after taking us through the grounds of detention and other connected materials, has raised the following contentions: - i) The pre-detention representation dated 14-4-2005 of the detenu has not been considered either by the detaining authority or by the Government; ii) There is a delay in consideration of the representation dated 18-4-2005; iii) The detaining authority failed to take note of the fact that there is no case for detaining the petitioners under National Security Act. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Assistant Solicitor General met all the points. 6. Coming to the first contention relating to non consideration of pre-detention representation dated 14-4-2005, no doubt Mr. G.R. Edmund, learned counsel for petitioners, has produced an acknowledgment card to show that the said representation was duly acknowledged by the Collectorate, Trichy and it was not at all considered by the detaining authority. According to him, had the detaining authority considered the said representation, even the detaining authority would not have pursued the detention order. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on verification from the records, submitted that the said representation dated 14-4-2005 was not received by the Collectorate; hence the non-consideration of the said representation does not arise. As said earlier, though the learned counsel for the petitioners has produced acknowlegment card evidencing the receipt of the said representation, as rightly pointed out by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, inasmuch as the sponsoring authority has filed affidavit on 19-4-2005 praying for invocation of detention order under National Security Act and in fact, the detention order was passed on 30-4-2005, the said representation dated 14-4-2005 being well prior to the affidavit of the sponsoring authority, we are of the view that in the absence of prejudice shown, non-consideration of the said representation is not fatal to the detention order, accordingly, we reject the said contention. 7. 7. Coming to the second contention relating to the representation subsequent to the detention order, the perusal of the details furnished by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor show that there was no inordinate delay at the hands of the State Government, we are satisfied that those representations were considered and rejected within a reasonable time. As a matter of fact, there is no serious dispute regarding the same by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. The information furnished by the third respondent also shows that the representation in Tamil dated 16-5-2005 made by the petitioners were received by the Central Government on 18-5-2005 after getting translated copy and the remarks from the State Government and after processing the same, the Central Government (Home Secretary) considered the case of the detenu and rejected the representation on 2-6-2005. The decision of the Central Government was communicated to the detenu through the Home Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli through wireless message dated 3-6-2005. We are satisfied that there was no delay on the part of the third respondent in taking decision on the representation of the petitioner and communicating the same through the Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. 9. Coming to the last contention that the detaining authority was not justified in invoking National Security Act, at the worst Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 alone applies, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has brought to our notice that the earlier incident, namely, 10-4-2005 relates to assault on police officials who were on bahdhobust duty and in the subsequent incident (ground case) relates to an offence under section 307 I.P.C. which was prejudicial for maintenance of public order in the locality in question. It is seen sub-section 2 of Section 3 of National Security Act, 1980 enables the Central Government or State Government that if they satisfied with respect of any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. On going through the grounds of detention, as specifically stated by the detaining authority, the conduct and involvement of the petitioners-detenus and in view of the statutory provision referred to above, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. We are satisfied that the detaining authority after perusing the entire records placed before it by the sponsoring authority, adhering the entire procedure laid down by the law and after arriving at a subjective satisfaction that the petitioners acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace on 11-4-2005, passed the impugned orders detaining them under Section 3 (2) of N.S.A. Act. We are satisfied that there is no procedural irregularity or lapse or flaw in passing the impugned orders of detention. 11. Under these circumstances, we do not find any error or infirmity warranting interference of this Court; accordingly both the petitions are dismissed.