JUDGMENT T. Vaiphei, J. 1. The legality of the order dated 24.9.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West (respondent No. 2) preventively detaining the husband of the petitioner under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short "NSA"), is under challenge in this writ petition. The petition is filed by the wife of the detenu. The detenu was arrested by Singjamei Police on 18.7.2009 in connection with FIR Case No. 183(9)2009 SJM, P.S. Under Section 17/20 UA (P) A. Act. On his arrest, he was produced before the court for police remand and was remanded to Police custody till 24.9.2009. On 24.9.2009, when he was produced before the court for judicial remand, the impugned detention order was passed and served upon him. It appears that the impugned detention order was passed even before the expiry of the remand period. Any way, on 28.9.2009, while he was on his cell at Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa, the grounds of his detention were furnished to him. In the meantime, on 3.10.2009, his detention order was approved by the respondent No. 1. The detenu, on 9.10.2009, submitted 3(three) separate representations, all bearing dated 9.10.2009, addressed to the respondents 1, 2 and 3. His representation was rejected by the respondent No. 1 on 12.10.2009. His representation meant for the respondent No. 3 was forwarded by the respondent No. 1 on 16.10.2009, which was received on 28.10.2009. His representation was finally rejected on 3.11.2009. In the meantime, his detention order was confirmed by the respondent No. 1 on 7.11.2009. This is how this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on behalf of the detenu for appropriate relief. The writ petition is contested by both the State respondents as well as the Union of India by filing their respective affidavits-in-oppositions. 2. Mr. Dolen Ph., the learned Counsel for the petitioner makes two fold contentions, namely (1) the allegations made against the detenu in the grounds of detention are vague and irrelevant and are not sufficient to deprive the detenu of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, for which, he relies on the decisions of this Court in Shri Y. Sharatchandra Singh v. the District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur and Ors. in W.P.(Cril.) No. 29 of 2009; Mohd. Yousuf Rather v. State of J. & K and Ors. in W.P.(Cril.) No. 29 of 2009; Mohd. Yousuf Rather v. State of J. & K and Ors. reported in 1979 (4) SCC 370 ; Gulab Mehra v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 1987 (4) SCC 302 ; Piyus Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and Anr. reported in 1989 (Supp.) 1 SCC 322 and there are no cogent materials upon which the subjective satisfactions of the detaining authority were arrived at, namely, the detenu was likely to be released on bail. Reliance is placed by him on the following decisions in support of his contention: (i) K.K. Saravana Babu v. State of T.N. reported in 2008 (9) SCC 89 ; (ii) T.V. Sravanan v. State reported in 2006 (2) SCC 664 ; (iii) A. Shanthi v. Govt. of T.N. and Ors. reported in 2006 (9) SCC 711 and (iv) Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi reported in 2002 (7) SCC 129 . 3. Mr. A. Modhuchandra Singh, learned State counsel, however, supports the impugned detention order and submits that no infirmity can be pointed out by the petitioner calling for the interference of this Court in the impugned detention order. It is the contention of the learned State counsel that in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority had enclosed a number of documents including the statements of the detenu himself recorded by the Police, which are relevant materials upon which the detaining authority could validly form the subjective satisfaction that the detenu would be acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the State of Manipur. According to the learned Counsel, the said statements of the detenu recorded by the Police, which is at Annexure-N/3 to the writ petition, reveals sufficient evidence for the purpose of preventive detention. Mr. Amerjit N., the learned CGSC also supports the contention of the learned State Counsel and contends that the impugned detention order does not suffer from any illegality warranting the interference of this Court. 4. We have carefully gone through the materials on record as well as the detention file placed before us by the learned State Counsel. We have also given our anxious consideration to the attack made with vehemence against the impugned detention order by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The first point for determination is whether the grounds of detention are based on vague and irrelevant materials. We have also given our anxious consideration to the attack made with vehemence against the impugned detention order by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The first point for determination is whether the grounds of detention are based on vague and irrelevant materials. The detenu is accused of associating with Shri Irom Priyobarta Singh @ Naocha of Kwakeithel Laishram Leikai and one Shri Ratan @ Inao Singh or Kakching Turel Wangma, who is reported to be the Finance in-charge of UNLF, Imphal West and of extorting money from the Contractors and Engineers of PHED and Forest Department, Govt. of Manipur by delivering demand letters. It is also alleged that he decided to print and printed the UNLF demand letter head in his press. He was also alleged to have been instructed by the said Ratan Singh and Irom Priyobarta Singh to extort moneys with the promise that he would be given 10% of the extorted moneys. It is alleged that the detenu and the said Irom Priyobarta Singh accordingly delivered demand letters to the Contractors and the Engineers of PHED and the Forest Departments, Govt. of Manipur after printing the said letter head in his press. He was also accused of printing the letter heads and press releases of different underground organizations, which were operating in Manipur Valley areas regularly. In the process, he and his associates are alleged to have extorted the huge amount of moneys from the aforesaid Departments and the moneys were handed over to the said Ratan Singh from time to time. He is also alleged to have threatened the victims not to report the mater to the Security Forces otherwise they would be killed. According to the grounds of detention, a sum of Rs. 10,04,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs four thousand), which was extorted from the Office of the PHED, was kept by him for handing them over to the said Ratan Singh, if he had the chance. These are the main grounds of detention against the detenu. As the main thrust of the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that these allegations are based on no material, we have taken the pains of reading the detention file produced by the State as well as the extract of the statements of the detenu, which is annexed as Annexure-N-3. As the main thrust of the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that these allegations are based on no material, we have taken the pains of reading the detention file produced by the State as well as the extract of the statements of the detenu, which is annexed as Annexure-N-3. On going through these documents, it appears that most of the allegations projected in the grounds of detention have been corroborated in material particulars. In our opinion, it cannot be said that the allegations made against the detenu are vague or ambiguous. We are also of the view that these materials are sufficient for the detaining authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu would be acting in future in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. It is, however, contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the extract copy of the interrogation statement of the detenu is a false and fabricated documents. He, further, contends that the detenu never made such statements incriminating himself as given in the Annexure-N/3. Moreover, according to the learned Counsel, such statements are not admissible in law and the detaining authority acted illegally in taking into account this statement for issuing the impugned detention order. In our judgment, these contentions have no substance whatsoever. At this stage, we wish to observe that as the Annexure-N/3 has been prepared by a public servant, we have no alternative but to hold that there is presumption of its regularity. The burden of proof that these documents are false and fabricated is upon to the petitioner. In the absence of discharging this burden by him, we have to treat the document at its face value. In this view of the matter, we hold that that detaining authority cannot be assailed in acting upon these documents for forming an opinion that the detenu would act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The concept of subjective satisfaction is necessarily associated with the exercise of discretionary power. The exercise of discretionary power involves two elements: (1) objective elements and (2) subjective elements. As long as subjective elements are deduced from objective elements, the adequacy or otherwise of the subjective satisfaction cannot be questioned by this Court in exercise of judicial review. The concept of subjective satisfaction is necessarily associated with the exercise of discretionary power. The exercise of discretionary power involves two elements: (1) objective elements and (2) subjective elements. As long as subjective elements are deduced from objective elements, the adequacy or otherwise of the subjective satisfaction cannot be questioned by this Court in exercise of judicial review. In the instant case, the extract of the interrogation statement of the detenu as well as the other documents referred to in the grounds of detention certainly constitute objective facts. There is nothing wrong if the detaining authority came to the conclusion that based on this objective elements, the detenu should be detained to prevent from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Therefore, the first limb of contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner fails. 5. Insofar as the second limb of contention of the petitioner that there is no material for holding that there was likelihood of the release of the detenu on bail is concerned, this contention has also no merit. The question whether the detenu is likely to be released on bail by a criminal court is a matter to be decided by the detaining authority based on objective criteria. We are, however hasten to add that such satisfaction has also to be arrived at by the detaining authority based on objective facts. The fact that the detenu has been arrested and charged with heinous offences is an admitted fact. The fact that he was remanded to Police custody is also not in dispute From these two facts, if the detaining authority, taking note of the atmosphere prevailing in and around the Imphal District, held the view that the detenu would be released on bail or that there was imminent possibility of his being released on bail, it cannot be said that the view taken by him is not a possible view. In other words, the view or the conclusion formed by the detaining authority is a possible view and cannot be an irrational view. The law is now well settled in public law that if there are two views on a matter, the view taken by the executive authorities cannot be upset by a writ court on the ground that the other view is a better view. The law is now well settled in public law that if there are two views on a matter, the view taken by the executive authorities cannot be upset by a writ court on the ground that the other view is a better view. Viewed from this angle, we do not think that the detaining authority has committed any infirmity in arriving at such conclusion. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is a delay of 6(six) days in transmitting the representation of the detenu to the respondent No. 3, i.e., the Central Government. His case is that though a specific plea in this behalf was made by the petitioner in the writ petition, no explanation, much less satisfactory explanation, is forthcoming from the State respondents. It may be noted that the representation of the detenu was to be forwarded to the respondent No. 3 along with the parawise comments of the State respondents. Both the representations of the detenu and the parawise comments of the State were forwarded to the respondent No. 3 within six days. Though no explanation has been preferred by the State respondents, this delay of six days, in our opinion, cannot vitiate the impugned detention order. Delay per se cannot be a ground for quashing a detention order. A delay, in order to be fatal, has to be an inordinate delay. A delay of six days cannot be considered to be an inordinate delay. When the delay is inordinate, then and then only the State is expected to, and must, give satisfactory explanation of the delay. Looking at the matter from all angles, we are of the opinion that the impugned detention order does not suffer from any infirmity and is, therefore, sustainable in law. 6. The result of the forgoing discussions is that this writ petition of habeas corpus has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Petition dismissed.