ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the wife of the detenu seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 27.10.2022 by which the District Magistrate, Jabalpur in exercise of the powers conferred under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short “the NSA”) has placed the detenu under preventive detention. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that based on the report of respondent No.3, namely, the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, the respondents conducted proceedings against the husband of the petitioner under section 3(2) of the NSA. It was, therefore, recommended for his detention for a period of three months from the date of the said order. Thereafter, the said period was extended by a further period of three months. The same has been done without granting any opportunity of hearing to him. That there are 16 cases pending against the husband of the petitioner, out of which 13 cases have been decided by the Court in which the detenu was acquitted. Only three cases are pending against him out of which two cases are of the year 2022. He has apparently been detained for the offences registered in Crime Nos. 253 of 2022 and 254 of 2022 at Police Station, Civil Lines, Jabalpur. Hence, the instant petition has been filed seeking to set aside the impugned order of detention dated 27.10.2022. 3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondents have issued yet another order of detention dated 28.12.2022 extending the period of detention by a further period of three months from 27.1.2023 till 27.4.2023. Hence, both the orders are under challenge in the instant petition. 4. Various grounds have been raised in the petition in order to question the orders of detention. One of the main grounds being urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that there was an inordinate hurry in passing the orders of detention. However, we do not find that such a pleading was specifically taken by the writ petitioner. However, we have heard learned counsel on the same. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground urged by him at the time of hearing may kindly be considered. A reply to the same has also been filed by the State. However, we do not find that such a pleading was specifically taken by the writ petitioner. However, we have heard learned counsel on the same. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground urged by him at the time of hearing may kindly be considered. A reply to the same has also been filed by the State. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner to assail the orders of preventive detention is firstly on the ground that there was an absolute urgency by the authority, as a result of lack of application of mind, while passing the orders of detention. He places reliance on the report of the proceedings in the daily diary (Roznamcha Sanha) of the Station House Officer, Police Station, Civil Lines, Jabalpur which has been produced by him vide Annexure P/6. The same can be found at page 93 to 95 of the writ petition. The learned counsel contends that the said report would indicate that it was furnished to the Collector on 27.10.2022 at 17.57 hours. Thereafter, the same was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur and thereafter to the District Magistrate who has passed the order on the very same day. Therefore, when such a huge report has been submitted, the concerned authorities should have adequate time to consider the same. When the initial report itself has been issued at 17.57 hours, the question of issuing the detention order on the very same day, cannot be accepted. The only conclusion that can be drawn is to the effect that there was non-application of mind and complete urgency in issuing the order of detention dated 27.10.2022. That it was a premeditated decision by the respondents to keep the detenu under custody. 6. The second ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that subsequent to the order of detention dated 27.10.2022 being passed, he submitted a representation on 3.11.2022 through his advocate Shri Manish Mishra. Thereafter, on 4.11.2022, the representation was forwarded for comments to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur. On 22.11.2022, the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur by his opinion addressed to the District Magistrate stated that there is no ground to justify the withdrawal of the order of preventive detention. Thereafter, on 4.11.2022, the representation was forwarded for comments to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur. On 22.11.2022, the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur by his opinion addressed to the District Magistrate stated that there is no ground to justify the withdrawal of the order of preventive detention. Consequently, on 29.11.2022, the said order was forwarded by the District Magistrate to the Department of Home, Government of Madhya Pradesh, the Ministry of Home, Central Government as well as to the detenu. By the order dated 23.12.2022, the representation of the detenu was rejected by the Department of Home, Government of Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, it is contended that when the representation was given on 3.11.2022, the same was ultimately rejected only on 23.12.2022. That there is an inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenu and hence, on this ground also the order of preventive detention requires to be quashed. 7. It is further contended that there are no grounds to pass the order of detention, in view of the fact that there are no criminal offences committed by the detenu. That a reading of the material on record would indicate that there was some incident involving certain lawyers at the High Court of M.P. Jabalpur, as a result of which the detenu has been wrongly implicated and reasons have been found to assign the applicability of the NSA against him. It is further contended that for the very same incident that occurred in the premises of the High Court of M.P., Jabalpur, two FIRs have been lodged virtually on the same ground. Therefore, this is also an infraction of law which would render the order of preventive detention to be bad. 8. In support of his, case the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and others reported in 2023 (3) JLJ 48 = 2021 SCC Online SC 1019, with reference to para 59, wherein, in conclusion, the order of preventive detention was set aside on the ground that there is an unexplained delay on the part of the State Government in deciding the representation of the appellant and secondly, there is a failure of the Central and the State Governments to communicate the rejection of the representation to the appellant in a timely manner. The reliance on this particular paragraph is only on the first ground to the effect of an unexplained delay on the part of the State Government in deciding the representation. The next decision relied upon by him is in the case of Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal reported in (1970) 1 SCC 219 with reference to paragraphs 17 to 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, therein, stated that four principles are to be followed with regard to the representation of the detenus. Firstly, the appropriate authority is bound to give an opportunity to the detenu to make a representation and to consider the same as early as possible. Secondly, the consideration of the representation of the detenu by the appropriate authority is entirely independent of any action by the Advisory Board including the consideration of the representation of the detenu by the Advisory Board. Thirdly, there should not be any delay in the matter of consideration of the representation. Fourthly, the appropriate Government is to exercise its opinion and judgment on the representation before sending the case along with the detenu's representation to the Advisory Board. In the facts of that case it was found by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the State of West Bengal was guilty of infraction of the Constitutional provisions not only by inordinate delay in consideration of the representation but also by putting off the consideration till after the receipt of the opinion by the Advisory Board. In view of the finding recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is no explanation for this inordinate delay, the order of preventive detention was quashed. 9. The State have filed their reply. They have denied the claim of the petitioner. They have narrated the chronology of events that have occurred in the said case. The same would read as follows :-- “27.10.2022 The station house officer Police Station Civil Lines, District Jabalpur submitted a representation before Superintendent of Police, district Jabalpur (M.P.) and recommended that action of preventive detention provided under section 3(2) of the National Security Act 1980 must be initiated against the detenue. Copy of representation/recommendation dated 27.10.2022 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-1. 27.10.2022 The Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur after considering the representation submitted by the SHO, submitted a report/representation before the District Magistrate, Jabalpur (M.P.) recommending that the proceedings U/s 3(2) of N.S.A. must be initiated against the Detenue. Copy of representation/recommendation dated 27.10.2022 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-1. 27.10.2022 The Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur after considering the representation submitted by the SHO, submitted a report/representation before the District Magistrate, Jabalpur (M.P.) recommending that the proceedings U/s 3(2) of N.S.A. must be initiated against the Detenue. Copy of report / representation dated 27.10.2022 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-2. 27.10.2022 That the detaining authority i.e. Respondent No.3 in careful consideration of the aforementioned recommendation and after due application of mind recorded its substantive satisfaction that proceedings u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act 1980 must be initiated against the detenue. Accordingly the order dated 27.10.2022 came to be issued whereby the detenue was sought to be kept in preventive detention for a period of 3 months from the date of actual detention. The order of detention specifically mentioned the fact that the detenue has a right to file representation against the order of detention before the detaining authority/D.M. and other authorities mentioned therein. Copy of the said order bearing signatures of the detenue is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-3. 27.10.2022 The Respondent No.3 i.e. the District Magistrate, District Jabalpur (M.P.) in exercise of the mandate conferred by section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980, served the grounds of detention along with complete set of material over the detenue and his signatures were duly obtained. Copy of the said order dated 27.10.2022 bearing signatures of the detenue is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-4. 31.10.2022 The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (4) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 has approved the order of detention dated 27.10.2022 within a period of 4 days from the date of issuance of order. Copy of the order dated 31.10.2022 is enclosed herein as ANNEXURE R-5. 31.10.2022 The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (5) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 has forwarded the detention order to the Central Government along with the grounds of detention in the proforma as specified in the Act. A copy of order dated 31.10.2022 forwarded by the State Government along with the proforma is enclosed herein as ANNEXURE R-6. A copy of order dated 31.10.2022 forwarded by the State Government along with the proforma is enclosed herein as ANNEXURE R-6. 24.11.2022 The State Government in exercise of power and mandate provided under sections, 9,10 and 11 of the National Security Act 1980 referred the order of preventive detention dated 27.10.2022, passed against the detenue to the advisory board. The advisory board submitted its report to the State Government and opined that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenue and accordingly in view thereof and in consideration of the possibility of disturbance of peace and order by the detenue in future, the State Government confirmed the order of preventive detention dated 27.10.2022. Copy of order dated 24.11.2022 is annexed herein as ANNEXURE R-7. 28.12.2022 That the State Government in exercise of power conferred in the proviso to Sub section 3 of section 3 of the National Security Act 1980, after recording its substantive satisfaction that it is necessary to do so, have extended the period of preventive detention further for a period of 3 months i.e. until 27.04.2023. Copy of the order dated 28.12.2022 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-8. 5.1.2023 The District Magistrate i.e. Respondent No.3 by virtue of its order dated 5.1.2023 has intimated to the Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Jabalpur regarding the extension order dated 28.12.2022 issued by the State Government whereby the preventive detention of the detenue was extended for a period of 3 months i.e. until 27.4.2023 for necessary compliance and action. Copy of order dated 5.1.2023 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-9.” Thereafter, they have stated that a representation dated 3.11.2022 was submitted on behalf of the detenu under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980. The same was duly considered by the authorities concerned. A chronological narration given therein with regard to representation dated 3.11.2022 is as follows :-- “3.11.2022. The representation on behalf of the detenue was preferred by one advocate Shri Manish Mishra and a copy of the same was also given to the Advisory Board, Department of Home, Govt. of M.P. as well as the Home Ministry, Central Govt. Copy of the representation dated 3.11.2022 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-10. 4.11.2022 On the basis of the representation submitted by the detenue, the District Magistrate, Jabalpur invited comments from the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur. of M.P. as well as the Home Ministry, Central Govt. Copy of the representation dated 3.11.2022 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-10. 4.11.2022 On the basis of the representation submitted by the detenue, the District Magistrate, Jabalpur invited comments from the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur. A copy of the said letter as well as the representation submitted by the detenue was sent over to the Department of Home, Govt. of M.P., Home Ministry, Central Govt. as well as to the detenue. Copy of the letter dated 4.11.2022 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-11. 22.11.2022 The Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur vide its opinion addressed to the District Magistrate, Jabalpur assigned reasons to justify that the order of preventive detention passed against the detenue and opined that same needs no interference and the same must be kept intact. Copy of the letter dated 22.11.2022 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur which was received on 28.11.2022 is annexed herein as ANNEXURE R12. 29.11.2022 A copy of the letter dated 22.11.2022 received from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur was forwarded to the Department of Home, Govt. of M.P., Home Ministry, Central Govt. as well as to the detenue by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur. Copy of the letter dated 29.11.2022 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-13. 22.12.2022 A wireless message was received from the Home Ministry, Central Govt. whereby in consideration of the representation of the detenue dated 3.11.2022, the Central Govt. opined that no interference is called for in the order dated 27.10.2022 of preventive detention and the request of the detenue to revoke the detention order was not acceded to. The said wireless message was duly served to the detenue on 23.12.2022. Copy of the said wireless message dated 22.12.2022 received from the Union Govt. is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-14. 23.12.2022 Department of Home, Govt. of M.P. issued an order in consideration of the representation of the detenue dated 3.11.2022, whereby it was opined that no interference is called for in the order dated 27.10.2022 of preventive detention and the request of the detenue to revoke the detention order was rejected. Copy of the said order dated 23.12.2022 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-15. 24.12.2022 The said order dated 23.12.2022 issued by the State Government was duly served upon the detenue through the Jail Superintended, Central Jail, Jabalpur. Copy of the said order dated 23.12.2022 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-15. 24.12.2022 The said order dated 23.12.2022 issued by the State Government was duly served upon the detenue through the Jail Superintended, Central Jail, Jabalpur. Copy of the said letter dated 24.12.2022 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-16.” 10. It is pleaded by the State that admittedly 16 cases were registered against the detenu. Even though he has been acquitted in some of the cases, there are other cases which are still pending consideration. Be that as it may, the detenu is engaged in illegal activities ever since the year 2000. That his detention is necessary in order to maintain peace and tranquility in the State. That two FIRs have also been lodged against him in the year 2022 for the incident that occurred at the High Court premises, Jabalpur. Therefore, all these factors have been considered by the detaining authority while passing the orders of preventive detention. So far as the contention that there was absolute urgency in passing the order of preventive detention is concerned, it is contended that there was absolutely no urgency in passing the impugned order dated 27.10.2022. That the report was sent at 17.57 hours by the Station House Officer (SHO) to the Superintendent of Police. The office of the Superintendent of Police is situated at a distance of less than two kilometers which would hardly take about 5 minutes to reach. From the office of the Superintendent of Police, the file was sent to the District Magistrate whose office was at a distance of less than one kilometer which would hardly take a couple of minutes to reach. In a matter pertaining to the acts committed by the detenu, the officials would already be aware of the incident that had occurred. That the submission of the files to the concerned officials and their application of mind cannot be doubted. It is not a case that without application of mind or without going through the documents on record the impugned order has been passed. In fact, the affidavits filed would indicate that every single material sent to the authority, has been scrutinized and observed minutely and thereafter an opinion has been furnished. It is not a case that without application of mind or without going through the documents on record the impugned order has been passed. In fact, the affidavits filed would indicate that every single material sent to the authority, has been scrutinized and observed minutely and thereafter an opinion has been furnished. Therefore, merely because the initial report was sent at 17.57 hours and the order was passed on the same day, does not ipso facto mean that there was a non-application of mind. Therefore, in view of the peculiar circumstances involved and the fact of the proximity of the offices, it is pleaded that there was absolute application of mind and delay cannot be occasioned against the concerned authorities. 11. So far as the delay in deciding the representation is concerned, the various dates on which the representation was considered by the various authorities have also been indicated. It is also narrated therein that on 24.11.2022 the matter was referred to the Advisory Board, wherein it was opined that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. That the consideration of the representation has been in accordance with law and it cannot be said that there was any delay in considering the representation of the detenu. It is pleaded in the additional reply filed by the State, wherein they have stated that it was rejected by the Central Government on 22.12.2022 and by the State Government on 23.12.2022. They have narrated that in the interregnum there were various public holidays that came into play and therefore, there may have been a delay in considering the representation. However, it is additionally pleaded by the learned Government Advocate that irrespective of the holidays that ensued during the said period, the representation has to be considered in an extremely serious manner by the concerned authorities. In order to do so the material had to be looked into by each one of the authorities. Therefore, it was not possible for the representation to be rejected without application of mind. The consideration of the representation by the authorities is required to be done in a serious manner. If not, the authorities would be held guilty of non-application of mind in passing an order without reading the concerned documents. It is for this reason that time elapsed. The consideration of the representation by the authorities is required to be done in a serious manner. If not, the authorities would be held guilty of non-application of mind in passing an order without reading the concerned documents. It is for this reason that time elapsed. Therefore, that by itself cannot constitute a ground to hold that the delay as such, renders the order of preventive detention, to be bad. In support of his case, he relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagendra Nath Mondal v. State of West Bengal reported in (1972) 1 SCC 498 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court therein took into consideration the earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayanarayan Sukul (supra). While considering the same, it was clarified that the delay in Jaynarayan Sukul’s case was of one month and twenty days and it was in the circumstances of that case was held to be inordinate vitiating the detention. It was further held that in a given case the Government may not be able to reach a proper conclusion within a short time, especially, in a case where another authority, as in that case the District Magistrate, had passed the questioned order. It might have to make enquiries as to situation in the locality, the nature of and the circumstances in which the detention was found necessary and the previous history of the person detained etc. Therefore, the contention that was being advanced that the time frame of one month twenty days as in the case of Jayanarayan Sukul (supra), which was held to vitiate the order of preventive detention, cannot be a benchmark to consider the delay in considering the representation of the detenu. Therefore, the time spent in each and every case has to be determined appropriately. In a given case, the time spent of more than one month twenty days may be said to be vitiated and in some cases, even the time spent of less than one month twenty days may also be vitiated. Therefore, it was held that there can be no hard and fast rule with regard to the time with which the Government can or should take a decision with regard to the representation of the detenu. Therefore, it was held that there can be no hard and fast rule with regard to the time with which the Government can or should take a decision with regard to the representation of the detenu. In conclusion, it was held that the delay that occasioned in the said case was not inordinate as to affect the validity of the petitioner’s detention. 12. So far as the further contention that the authorities have created reasons to issue the order of preventive detention despite keeping in mind the acquittal of the detenu in various other cases is concerned, the same has also been denied by the State. It is submitted that they have furnished a list of cases in which the detenu was involved. That the contention of the petitioner that only because he was involved in the incident that occurred in the High Court premises, has triggered the order of preventive detention, cannot be accepted. The last two FIRs lodged against him with regard to the said incident in the year 2022 are the other two cases that were lodged against him. It may not constitute the only ground for issuing the order of preventive detention. The concerned authorities have taken into account the entire background of the petitioner which also includes the last two FIRs lodged against him. Therefore, the totality of the circumstances and all the cases lodged against him, whether he is acquitted therein or not, constituted the grounds on which the order of preventive detention was passed. Therefore, so far as the ultimate contention that two FIRs have been lodged for the very same incident is also untenable. The factum of lodging two FIRs against the detenu is on record. Whether the lodging of the FIRs is just and appropriate or whether it withstands the test of law, is not within the jurisdiction of the Court trying a petition for habeas corpus. The validity of the FIRs would have to be questioned in another forum and not in this petition. So far as the present status is concerned, both the FIRs are still valid and an investigation has been initiated. Therefore, the contention that two FIRs have been lodged against the very same incident, may not constitute a ground for which this Court should be concerned itself about. Under these circumstances, it is pleaded that the orders of preventive detention be upheld. 13. Therefore, the contention that two FIRs have been lodged against the very same incident, may not constitute a ground for which this Court should be concerned itself about. Under these circumstances, it is pleaded that the orders of preventive detention be upheld. 13. In the statement of objections the State have stated as follows:-- “6. That, the answering respondents most humbly submits that in the case at hand, the impugned action has been taken against the detenu under section 3(2) of the N.S. Act and a bare perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the detenu has been detained in order to prevent him “from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”. 7. That the detenu is a resident of Shahinaka Road, Phoolsagar, falling under Police Station Garha District Jabalpur, M.P. and is habitual offender of the said area. The detenu since last more than 23 years is continuously involved in criminal activities which is writ large on perusal of his past criminal record, which has been produced by the SHO of the concerned Police along with the representation submitted before the Superintendent- of Police (Anneuxre P/1). 8. The detenu has committed several crimes in broad daylight and has shown scant regard to the laws of the land which has seriously affected the law and order situation and has created immense fear in the minds of the general public. The detenu has repeatedly breached the peace amongst the common public of the area and because of his terrorizing and criminal acts, the witnesses do not come forward to depose against him during trial of criminal cases filed against him due to fear, threat and coercion. The detenu has committed several nefarious crimes in his lifetime because of which not only in the area under the jurisdiction of PS Civil Lines, Jabalpur but even in the other police stations there has been an adverse impact on the civil order. Amongst the various offences committed by the detenu includes obstructing the way of the general public along with his accomplices and giving dire death threats, hurling filthy oral abuses in public places, causing grievous injuries, cheating, fraud, assault and causing interruption in discharge of public duty etc. 9. The detenu has been continuously committing such crimes for a period extending over more than two decades. 9. The detenu has been continuously committing such crimes for a period extending over more than two decades. As many as sixteen crimes have been registered against the detenu at Police Station, Civil Lines and other Police stations falling under the jurisdiction the Jabalpur M.P. Out of the said 16 cases, the detenu is undergoing trial in as many as 7 cases, investigation is going on in 3 cases whereas he has been acquitted in 3 cases, closure report has been filed in 2 cases and mutual settlement has been arrived in 1 case. 10. Be that as it may be, the very movement of the detenu in the city and specifically in the particular locality adversely affects the law and order situation, leading to breach of peace and therefore very presence of the detenu has become prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detenu is engaged in illegal activities since the year 2000 and is actively involved in committing illegal/criminal activities till date, as more than one FIR has been registered against him even in the year 2022. Hence, it can be said that the detenu is actively taking part in criminal activities since last 22 years. 11. That, the detenu has a long and checkered criminal history, very recently, on the complaint made on 30.9.2022, an FIR has been registered against the detenu under sections 147, 149,435 of the IPC and the same was registered with Crime No. 254 of 2022 before Thana Civil Lines, District Jabalpur (M.P.) whereas there is another criminal case that has been registered against the detenue bearing Crime No. 253/22, under sections 353,332,427,294,147 and 149 of the IPC registered before Thana Civil Lines, District Jabalpur (M.P.) 12. The aforementioned crime has been registered in view of the incident that took place on 30.9.2022 whereby it has been alleged that attempt was made to unauthorized carry the dead body of an advocate namely late Shri Anurag Sahu inside the High Court campus with an intention to carry the dead body to the Court Room of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court. It is further alleged that the detenu was leading the crowd of advocates who during the course of carrying the dead body inside the Court premises caused damage to the D.F.M.D. and battery bank system. It is further alleged that the detenu was leading the crowd of advocates who during the course of carrying the dead body inside the Court premises caused damage to the D.F.M.D. and battery bank system. It is further alleged that when the police authorities tried to prevent and stop the detenu and other erring persons, the said police personnel’s were manhandled which resulted into injuries to them. 13. Hence, in view of the aforesaid past conduct of the detenu and since there was no improvement in the activities of the detenu despite registration of various criminal cases against him, a substantive satisfaction was arrived at by the detaining authority that there is a possibility of the detenu committing serious incidents in the future leading to disturbance of the law and order situation which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.” 14. Heard learned counsels and examined the records. 15. Before we consider the contentions, it is important to keep in mind the scope for interference in matters of preventive detention. It is only on limited grounds that the Court would interfere with the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority. The material relied upon by the detaining authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction should be so flimsy or unacceptable that no common man would come to such a conclusion. When the grounds of detention are clear and unambiguous, no intervention is called for. The orders of preventive detention are passed not as a punishment but for prevention. It is for this reason that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority becomes important. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment dated 21.2.2012 in the case of Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu and another passed in Criminal Appeal No.417 of 2012 have held as follows :-- “11. It is well settled that the Court does not interfere with the subjective satisfaction reached by the Detaining Authority except in exceptional and extremely limited grounds. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment dated 21.2.2012 in the case of Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu and another passed in Criminal Appeal No.417 of 2012 have held as follows :-- “11. It is well settled that the Court does not interfere with the subjective satisfaction reached by the Detaining Authority except in exceptional and extremely limited grounds. The Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the Detaining Authority when the grounds of detention are precise, pertinent, proximate and relevant, that sufficiency of grounds is not for the Court but for the Detaining Authority for the formation of subjective satisfaction that the detention of a person with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to public order is required and that such satisfaction is subjective and not objective. The object of the law of preventive detention is not punitive but only preventive and further that the action of the executive in detaining a person being only precautionary, normally, the matter has necessarily to be left to the discretion of the executive authority. It is not practicable to lay down objective rules of conduct in an exhaustive manner. The satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, therefore, is considered to be of primary importance with certain latitude in the exercise of its discretion.” 17. So far as the first contention is concerned, it is an admitted position that the report was sent by the concerned SHO at 17.57 hours on 27.10.2022. It was then forwarded to the Superintendent of Police and thereafter to the District Magistrate. It is also not disputed with regard to the distance between all the three authorities at Jabalpur. Therefore, it cannot be said that time required to be spent for the file to reach each one of these concerned offices was insufficient. It is also not disputed that the file in question was actually handed over in person by the concerned SHO to all the authorities concerned. Since all the authorities were within a very short distance, it cannot be said that there is absolute non-application of mind. That even though the order was passed on the very same day namely on 27.10.2022 merely on the ground that the initial order of the SHO was dispatched only at 17.57 hours, cannot by itself lead to a conclusion that there was no application of mind. That even though the order was passed on the very same day namely on 27.10.2022 merely on the ground that the initial order of the SHO was dispatched only at 17.57 hours, cannot by itself lead to a conclusion that there was no application of mind. In order to constitute non-application of mind, there cannot be a mere assumption with regard to the same. One would have to plead and prove to the effect that such an order could not have been passed in such a short period of time. However having considered the material, the proximity of the offices between one and another, and also that the file was being carried by hand from one office to another, we are of the view that the ground that there was absolute urgency in issuing the order of preventive detention, as a result of non-application of mind while passing the order of preventive detention, cannot be deduced. 18. The further contention is that there is an inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenu. That the law postulates that the representation of the detenu be considered at the earliest point of time. It is the fundamental right of the detenu for early consideration of his representation. 19. In matters of preventive detention, it is only just and appropriate that the State considers the matters as expeditiously as possible. It is not expected that every authority under the State would take its own sweet time to consider the records of the case. Preventive detentions are matters of national security. They need to be considered as an absolute sensitive manner since it includes the liberty of a citizen as well as public order. The sensitivity also includes the speed at which the files are considered. Only because the files are considered in an appropriate manner does not lead to the only conclusion that there is non-application of mind. There cannot be a presumption that every file requires to sit on a table for a couple of days for it to be considered. If the authorities concerned have applied their mind to the case and have passed a reasoned order, that would constitute application of mind by the authorities. Merely because they discharge their duties in a just and quick manner, does not entail the only conclusion that it has been done in a rash or negligent manner or without application of mind. If the authorities concerned have applied their mind to the case and have passed a reasoned order, that would constitute application of mind by the authorities. Merely because they discharge their duties in a just and quick manner, does not entail the only conclusion that it has been done in a rash or negligent manner or without application of mind. To this regard, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayanarayan Sukul (supra), was considered by the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagendra Nath Mondal (supra).Therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that so far as the principle laid down in the case of Jayanarayan Sukul (supra) is concerned, the same cannot be disputed. That every representation has to be considered in an expeditious manner. However, what is expeditious, requires to be considered based on the facts and circumstances of each case. In a particular case an order being passed within one week may be expeditious. In another case, an order being passed even after three months may still be expeditious. 20. In the case of Jayanarayan Sukul (supra), based on the facts and circumstances involved therein, it was noted on facts that the delay of one month and twenty days is fatal. It was clarified in Nagendra Nath Mondal’s case (supra), that one month twenty days is not a benchmark. The benchmark to be considered is - whether an appropriate time has been spent by the Government in considering the representation. Therefore, there can be no hard and fast rule with regard to the time, within which the Government can or should take a decision. That each case must be decided on its own facts. Therefore, in the case of Jayanarayan Sukul (supra), it was held that the delay of one month and twenty days was fatal. In the case of Nagendra Nath Mondal (supra), the delay of thirty- four days was held to be not so inordinate so as to affect the validity of the petitioner’s detention. 21. Therefore, in the case of Jayanarayan Sukul (supra), it was held that the delay of one month and twenty days was fatal. In the case of Nagendra Nath Mondal (supra), the delay of thirty- four days was held to be not so inordinate so as to affect the validity of the petitioner’s detention. 21. In the case of Vinod K. Chawla v. Union of India reported in (2006) 7 SCC 337 , the detention order passed under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short “COFEPOSA”) was challenged on the ground of delay in the consideration of the representation of detenu, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at para 13 as follows :-- “13. The contention raised cannot be judged by any straitjacket formula divorced from facts. This has to be examined with reference to the facts of each case having regard to the volume and contents of the grounds of detention, the documents supplied along with the grounds, the inquiry to be made by the officers of different departments, the nature of the inquiry, the time required for examining the various pleas raised, the time required in recording the comments by the authorities of the department concerned, and so on.” 22. The consequences of delay in considering the representation of detenu in matters of preventive detention under the National Security Act have received consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Laishram Lincola Singh reported in (2008) 5 SCC 490 , with reference to para 6, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held as follows :-- “6. There can be no hard and fast rule as to the measure of reasonable time and each case has to be considered from the facts of the case and if there is no negligence or callous inaction or avoidable red tapism on the facts of a case, the Court would not interfere. It needs no reiteration that it is the duty of the Court to see that the efficacy of the limited, yet crucial, safeguards provided in the law of preventive detention is not lost in mechanical routine, dull casualness and chill indifference, on the part of the authorities entrusted with their application. When there is remissness, indifference or avoidable delay on the part of the authority, the detention becomes vulnerable.” 23. When there is remissness, indifference or avoidable delay on the part of the authority, the detention becomes vulnerable.” 23. Therefore, we are of the view that so far as the requirement with regard to the early disposal of the representation is concerned, the same has been complied with by the State. We do not find that there is any delay in considering the representation by the State. We say so based on the facts involved in the present case. The representation had to be routed through the State Government as well as the Central Government. The State Government were aware of the details. However the Central Government was entitled not only to consider the material on record but also to call for various other materials that they found necessary in order to consider the representation. In the given facts and circumstances of the case where the detenu was involved in as many as 16 cases, the material in each one of the cases would have to be considered. The time taken in the consideration of the material is just and appropriate and cannot be said to vitiate the orders of preventive detention. Hence, we find that so far as the consideration of the representation of the detenu is concerned it cannot be said to be hit by delay occasioned by the authorities. 24. The time taken by the State Government while passing the order of preventive detention and the time taken by the Central Government in considering the representation is quite different. So far as the State Government is concerned, the entire set of material was already available with them. Any query could have easily been answered in view of the availability of the material on record. However, the same is not the case so far as the Central Government is concerned. In case the Central Government is not satisfied with the material submitted to them, they are always entitled to seek for additional information and material for the said purpose. It is for this reason that the time has been spent by the Central Government in passing the necessary orders. Therefore, under these circumstances, we are of the view that there is no delay occasioned by the Central Government in considering the representation of the detenu. 25. It is for this reason that the time has been spent by the Central Government in passing the necessary orders. Therefore, under these circumstances, we are of the view that there is no delay occasioned by the Central Government in considering the representation of the detenu. 25. The further contention that so far as the last two FIRs are concerned, which arise out of only one incident of the High Court and therefore two FIRs could not have been lodged, in our considered view, goes beyond the scope of this petition. We are not testing the validity of the FIRs in this petition. We are only testing the subjective satisfaction of the authorities in arriving at a conclusion: whether the orders of preventive detention could be justified or not; whether there is application of mind by the authorities while ordering preventive detention; and whether adequate material was considered by the authorities when an order of preventive detention was being passed. Therefore, the contention that two FIRs could not be lodged against one particular incident, in our considered view, may not be appropriate for us to consider in this petition. 26. The further contention is with regard to the fact that the order of preventive detention is pre-meditated in view of the fact that the sole reason for ordering preventive detention is the incident that had occurred in the High Court. That the order of preventive detention has been issued solely on the basis of the last two FIRs lodged against the detenu in the year 2022. We are unable to accept such a contention. Various grounds of detention have been stated by the State. They have furnished a list of offences in which the detenu was involved. One of such offences is the one which he has committed in the premises of the High Court, Jabalpur Bench. It is alleged that the detenu played an active role in bringing the dead body of the deceased advocate into the High Court premises and even attempted to carry the dead body to the various halls of the Court. This is indeed a serious law and order issue. Having taken note of the conduct of the detenu, the order of preventive detention has been passed. This is indeed a serious law and order issue. Having taken note of the conduct of the detenu, the order of preventive detention has been passed. Therefore, firstly, is the fact that there was sufficient material available with the respondents to pass the impugned order and secondly, it is not necessary each of the grounds is necessary to be established to sustain the order of preventive detention. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments have come to the view that even a single ground in the grounds of detention is sufficient to sustain the order of preventive detention. Therefore, the sum and substance of the same is not necessarily the totality of the circumstances, but even if one circumstance exists, the order of preventive detention can be justified. Therefore, we do not find it appropriate to accept the said contention. 27. The question whether the detention of the detenu only on a solitary ground is valid or not has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order-F) and another v. Nabila and another reported in (2015) 12 SCC 127 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court referring to its earlier decision in the case of Union of India v. Chaya Ghoshal reported in (2005) 10 SCC 97 , have held as follows :-- “23. So far as the finding of the High Court that there was only one incident is really a conclusion based on erroneous premises. It is not the number of acts which determine the question as to whether detention is warranted. It is the impact of the act, the factual position as highlighted goes to show that the financial consequences were enormous and ran into crores of rupees, as alleged by the detaining authority. The High Court seems to have been swayed away that there was only one incident and none after release on bail. The approach was not certainly correct and the judgment on that score also is vulnerable. At the cost of repetition it may be said that it is not the number of acts which is material, it is the impact and effect of the act which is determinative. The High Court's conclusions in this regard are therefore not sustainable.” 28. The approach was not certainly correct and the judgment on that score also is vulnerable. At the cost of repetition it may be said that it is not the number of acts which is material, it is the impact and effect of the act which is determinative. The High Court's conclusions in this regard are therefore not sustainable.” 28. An order of preventive detention is passed by the Executive in order to prevent the detenu from committing future crimes. It is the apprehension of the Executive that the detenu is likely to commit the future crime. On the other hand, lodging of an FIR is after a particular crime has been committed by the detenu. The same would lead to the investigation, prosecution and a trial of an offence which has been committed by the detenu. Therefore, it cannot be said that based on an offence committed by the detenu, the Executive is debarred from issuing an order of preventive detention in view of the fact that an FIR has been lodged and prosecution has been initiated. Therefore, an order of preventive detention will still lie along with the prosecution for the offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Haradhan Saha and another vs. State of West Bengal and others, reported in (1975) 3 SCC 198 have held in para 19 as follows :-- “19. The essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done but to prevent him from doing it. The basis of detention is the satisfaction of the Executive of a reasonable probability of the likelihood of the detenu acting in a manner similar to his past acts and preventing him by detention from doing the same. A criminal conviction on the other hand is for an act already done which can only be possible by a trial and legal evidence. There is no parallel between prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order under the Act. One is a punitive action and the other is a preventive act. In one case a person is punished on proof of his guilt and the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in preventive detention a man is prevented from doing something which it is necessary for reasons mentioned in section 3 of the Act to prevent.” 29. One is a punitive action and the other is a preventive act. In one case a person is punished on proof of his guilt and the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in preventive detention a man is prevented from doing something which it is necessary for reasons mentioned in section 3 of the Act to prevent.” 29. It was further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Haradhan Saha (supra), with reference to paras 32 and 33, which reads as follows :-- “32. The power of preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention. The power of preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or may not relate to an offence. It is not a parallel proceeding. It does not over lap with prosecution even if it relies on certain facts for which prosecution may be launched or may have been launched. An order of preventive detention, may be made before or during prosecution. An order of preventive detention may be made with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention. An order of preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution. 33. Article 14 is inapplicable because preventive detention and prosecution are not synonymous. The purposes are different. The authorities are different. The nature of proceedings is different. In a prosecution an accused is sought to be punished for a past act. In preventive detention, the past act is merely the material for inference about the future course of probable conduct on the part of the detenu.” The same has also been quoted with approval by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-15 of its judgment in the case of Nabila (supra). 30. Therefore, to contend that the FIR is bad in law is wholly misplaced. As narrated hereinabove by us, the question of testing the validity of the FIR in the petition for habeas corpus would not arise for consideration. 31. Under these circumstances, for all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to allow this petition. The petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.