Judgment : BHANGALE, J. 1. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for respective parties. 2. By means of this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention passed by Shri Pravin Dixit, the then Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City bearing D.O. No. DET/MPDA/Zone IV/PCB /1/2010 dated 5.2.2010 against the detenue under section 3 (1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 with reference to Amendment Ordinance 2009 (Mah. L.V. Of 1981) {for short, “the Act of 1981”}. 3. The allegations against the petitioner are that since the year 2004 the petitioner has been continuously engaging himself in commission of violent and desperate activities and two crimes were registered against him, which are as under : (I) Crime No.218/2009 registered at Nandanvan Police Station Nagpur on 20.7.2009 for offence punishable under section 143, 147, 148, 149, 384, 385, 294, 506(B), 509, 323 of the Indian Penal Code; (II) Crime No. 245/ 2009 registered at Nandanvan Police Station on 28.8.2009 for offence punishable under sections 384, 385, 323, 506(B) read with Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It is further alleged that Crime No. 326 of 2005 under section 302 read with section 34 IPC, was also reported at Kotwali Police station against the petitioner; but he was acquitted in that case. Two in-camera statements were recorded on 3.9.2009 and verified on 29.11.2009 by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sakkardara Division, Nagpur against the petitioner relating to continuance of his antisocial activities indulged into by the petitioner, his cohorts Attu Pujari and others, to abuse, assault and threaten a lady conducting Gajanan Coaching Classes, Hiwari Nagar, Nagpur and her husband. Thus, it is alleged that upon subjective satisfaction that the petitioner has indulged in to activities which are extremely prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the detention order impugned herein, was passed. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the representation sent dated 24.2.2010 which was received by the Secretary, Advisory Board under the Act (Respondent No.3) on 3.3.2010, the detention was finally confirmed by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City by order dated 15.3.2010. 6. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the representation sent dated 24.2.2010 which was received by the Secretary, Advisory Board under the Act (Respondent No.3) on 3.3.2010, the detention was finally confirmed by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City by order dated 15.3.2010. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there has been inordinate delay which remained unexplained since last crime was reported against the detenue on 28.8.2009. It is contended that in the absence of live-link between the alleged prejudicial activities of the detenue and the detention order, there was no rational behind clamping of the detention order. Shri R.M. Daga, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in respect of Crime No.245/2009 registered at Nandanwan Police Station, the petitioner was granted conditional bail on 17.7.2009 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge Nagpur (vide order in Misc. Cri. Application No.2262/2009). Therefore, the fact ought to have been placed before the detaining Authority. It is thus urged that the subjective satisfaction by the respondent no.2 was hampered due to non-consideration of the conditional bail order granted in favour of the detenue. It is also submitted that identity of the two witnesses whose in-camera statements were recorded, was withheld from the petitioner and, thus, he was deprived of an opportunity to make effective representation. Learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon the ruling in Mrs. Nanda Sinil Selvedor vs. Shri S.Sivanandhan and others: 2008 All MR (Cri) 670, to argue that it is important for the detaining Authority before reaching the subjective satisfaction to supply material to the defence on which it is rely upon so as to afford him an opportunity to make effective representation and to question whether any of the statement made by the identity concealed witnesses were statement of facts. It is further submitted that delay in issuance of detention order ought to have been reasonably explained in view of ruling in Smt.Savita Shankar Lokhande vs. Shri M N Singh and others ; 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 846 and Smt. Savita Prakash Manjrekar vs. Shri R M Mendoinca and others : 2000 ALL MR (Cri) 991. It is urged that the delay in issuing detention order if not satisfactorily explained is sufficient to quash the detention order as held in Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar vs. S.Ramamurthi and others reported in AIR 1994 SC 656 . 7. Per contra, Mrs. It is urged that the delay in issuing detention order if not satisfactorily explained is sufficient to quash the detention order as held in Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar vs. S.Ramamurthi and others reported in AIR 1994 SC 656 . 7. Per contra, Mrs. B.H.Dangre, learned APP submitted that in the instant case, there was no snapping of live-link between the antisocial dangerous and prejudicial activities indulged into by the petitioner and the impugned detention order as the span of time was reasonable. Learned APP made reference to the ruling in Indrajit Goswami vs. R H Mendonca and others: 1999 CRI.L.J. 4332 (Bom). Delay between 20.12.1997 and 16.4.1998 was held reasonably well-explained in that case. It is held that delay in order to snap the live-link must be between the date of commission of series of incidents to the passing the order of detention. The Bombay High Court had referred to the ruling in Rajendrakumar vs. State of Gujarat: AIR 1988 SC 1255 which held that mere unexplained delay will not ipso facto give rise to legitimate inference that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the District Magistrate was not genuine or that there was no rational connection between the grounds and the impugned order of detention. Mrs Dangre also made reference to the ruling in Abdu Salam @ Thiyyan vs. Union of India: (1990) 3 SCC 15 , to argue that delay of one month and five days held was not fatal to the detention order in disposal of the representation in absence of negligence, callous inaction, avoidable red-tapism. 8. We have heard the submissions at the Bar, at length and also perused plethora of rulings cited. It is axiomatic that in criminal cases each case depends upon its own facts and circumstances. The Court has to see whether the delay is explained reasonably considering each case on its own facts. 9. As regards the contention of non disclosure of identity of witnesses whose statements were recorded in-camera, it is fact of common knowledge that witnesses would be afraid of their life and are most hesitant and reluctant to come forward and complain against anti-socials; weapon-wielding elements who, by their conduct, are indulging in creating reign of terror, so also illegal activities i.e. criminal intimidation, extortion etc. which create fear in the mind of public and does affect public order and tranquility of the society. which create fear in the mind of public and does affect public order and tranquility of the society. At the same time, it is necessary for the Detaining Authority to verify genuineness or otherwise of the allegations or accusations made against the detenue and record its subjective satisfaction. Nondisclosure of identity of witnesses whose statements may have been recorded in-camera, in order to ensure their personal security and shield themselves from the rage of ruffians is not by itself, fatal to the detention order, if such truth and genuineness of such statement made was verified by the Detaining Authority. 10. In the instant case, the Detaining Authority had taken preventive action under section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the detenue in the past since from the year 2004 the detenue had indulged in two criminal activities in local limits of Nandanvan Police Station, Nagpur which had also registered Crime No.218 and 245 both of 2009 in respect of serious accusations against him, on 20.7.2009 and 28.8.2009 respectively. Statements of two witnesses were recorded in-camera. A lady complained of antisocial activities of the detenue that on 20.7.2009 at about 5.45 hours detenue along with his cronies Attu Pujari and others were pushing, abusing and assaulting her sister, created fear in her mind. Detenue had also threatened her husband and assaulted him. The detenue had abused and threatened to kill the witnesses. Under these circumstances, no fault can be found if their identity was concealed from the detenue to ensure personal protection of the witnesses. 11. The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons & Video Pirates Act, 1981 ( Mah LV of 1981 ) .provides for preventive detention so as to prevent dangerous activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order. The persons having resources and influence and carrying on dangerous activities clandestinely organized to violate laws in the State particularly in urban areas, are prevented from such activities by order of detention under section 3 of the Act which requires satisfaction of the State Government for to make an order to prevent a person engaged in activities affecting adversely or likely to affect adversely maintenance of public order. The slumlords, bootleggers, drug offenders, dangerous persons and video pirates are covered under the Act who may directly or indirectly cause or by calculated activities cause any harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity amongst general public or section thereof or may carry on widespread or grave activities which may be dangerous to life or public health. Thus, it is a condition precedent for the Detaining Authority before passing an order of preventive detention to satisfy itself that such order is required to be passed to prevent activities of slumlord or bootlegger or drug offender or dangerous person or video pirate, as the case may be. 12. In the present case, it is alleged that the detenue is carrying on dangerous activities and to prevent his activities, the order has been passed for detention which is impugned herein. The detenue in the present case appears served with the order to enable him to make a representation. The petitioner also appears educated up to ninth standard. An order has to be based upon a valid ground for detention as any violation of procedure is viewed seriously. The representation if made against proposed detention has to be considered expeditiously without undue delay. The delay if remained unexplained, may be violative of the personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Therefore, an order cannot be passed mechanically and in a routine manner with dull casualness. Habitual criminal may no doubt be prevented from to repeat offences but before detention order is passed, the subjective satisfaction has to be recorded on the basis of relevant material as to whether person against whom preventive detention order is to be passed is a dangerous person or habitual criminal who by force of habit or by disposition is accustomed to commit crime persistently and with prima facie continuity in commission of offences. If reference is made only of one isolated crime without reference to other crimes, it cannot be said that detenue is habitual criminal. All procedural requirement as contemplated under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India are to be complied with strictly. Relevant and vital documents are required to be placed before the Detaining Authority which the Detaining Authority can take into consideration. The relevant material documents must also be supplied to the detenue to enable him to make an effective representation in view of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. Relevant and vital documents are required to be placed before the Detaining Authority which the Detaining Authority can take into consideration. The relevant material documents must also be supplied to the detenue to enable him to make an effective representation in view of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. Non-supply of relevant material documents vitiate the order if Detaining Authority has relied upon those documents. Although all the documents which are placed before the Detaining Authority are not required to be supplied relevant and vital documents are required to be supplied to the detenue before preventive detention order is passed. In other words, if any irrelevant material which did not affect decision of the Detaining Authority is withheld it may not be fatal to the detention order. If the requirements of fairness are not complied with, the detention order would be vitiated and will have to be quashed. 13. In the instant case, in Para 7 of the impugned order (reasons) dated 5.2.2010, the Respondent No.2 has dealt in details about its subjective satisfaction in respect of the apprehended dangerous acts on the part of the detenue on the basis of information which he had received from Senior Police Inspector of Nandanwan Police Station and which he had verified. It appears that the Detaining Authority had satisfied itself that the petitioner has continuously engaged himself in commission of offensive activities and had created a fear in the mind of people residing in the jurisdiction of Kotwali and Nandanwan Police Stations, Nagpur by his antisocial conduct prone to indulge in violent activities. The Commissioner of Police /Respondent No.2 did consider the report from the Senior Police Inspector of Nandanwan Police Station, Nagpur dated 18.1.2010 which furnished comprehensive information in respect of offences reported against him at Kotwali and Nandanwan Police Stations, the past history of preventive proceedings under section 110 of Cr. P.C. initiated against the detenue in the year 200809; statement of allegations made by witnesses on the basis of which senior P.I. of Nandanwan Police Station Nagpur City sought preventive action against the detenue under the Act of 1981. We have perused the report from Senior P. I. Nandanvan Police Station dated 18.1.2010 on the basis of which the impugned order dated 5th February 2010 was passed by the Respondent No.2. In our considered view since the detenue was in jail in respect of crime reported against him being Cr. We have perused the report from Senior P. I. Nandanvan Police Station dated 18.1.2010 on the basis of which the impugned order dated 5th February 2010 was passed by the Respondent No.2. In our considered view since the detenue was in jail in respect of crime reported against him being Cr. No.245/2009 before he was released on bail by order dated 17.12.2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, it was not emergent on the part of the Detaining Authority to take immediate action against the petitioner-detenue. Hence there was no delay as such, which is required to be explained in the present case in passing the preventive detention order. The Detaining Authority took its own time to verify the information received by it to serve the grounds of detention upon the detenue, after verification of the truth and genuineness of information on the basis of which preventive detention order under the Act of 1981 was passed. We, therefore, do not find any blemish or infirmity whatsoever in the order sought to be challenged in this petition as the impugned action was valid on the basis of verified information. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, there is no justification in the challenge of the impugned order. In the result, Petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged.