ORDER : T.M.NADAF, J. Smt.Priyadarshini, wife of the detenue namely, Rajesh @Motte, is before this Court seeking Writ of Habeas Corpus in the following manner : “Wherefore, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: a. Issue a writ of habeas corpus declaring the detention of Rajesh @ Motte, son of Late Subramani illegal and set him at liberty forthwith after quashing the order bearing reference No.05/CRM(4)/DTN/2025 dated 29/01/2025 (Annexure "A") passed by the 1 Respondent under Section 3(1) of the Goonda Act, the order bearing reference number HD 54 SST 2025 dated 04/02/2025 (Annexure "B") passed by the 2nd Respondent under Section 3(3) of the Goonda Act and order bearing reference number HD 54 SST 2025 dated 06/03/2025 (Annexure "C") passed by the 2nd Respondent under Section13 of the Goonda Act; b. Call for the records bearing reference number05/CRM(4)/DTN/2025 dated 29/01/2025 (Annexure "A") from the Respondents; c. Pass any order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 2. FACTS OF THE CASE:- Succinctly stated facts of the case are, it is alleged by the respondents that the husband of the petitioner namely, Rajesh @ Motte is indulged in antisocial and criminal activities and became a nuisance to the public order by committing offences endangering the human body and also property ever since 2018. According to them, the detenue started his illegal activities since his childhood and continued the same. He is involved in 12 cases including heinous crimes under different Police Stations in Bengaluru city. The activities of the detenue are adversely affecting the public order and inspite of sufficient opportunities provided by the Courts so also the respondent authority to correct and reform his actions, he is reluctant in his behavior and became more aggressive and continuing his activities affecting the public order which made the police to open ‘A’ category Rowdy Sheeter in K.G.Nagar police station on 13.12.2023, in proceedings No.CC/300/ACP-05/2023. Despite on bail, in the criminal cases initiated against him, the detenue indulged in threatening the witnesses thereby, hampering the administration of justice. Despite on bail, in the criminal cases initiated against him, the detenue indulged in threatening the witnesses thereby, hampering the administration of justice. The authorities having left with no other alternative had to detain the detenue under the provisions of Sections 3 (1) and (2) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 (Act 12 of 1985) (Goonda Act) (hereinafter referred as ‘Act, 1985’, for short), to prevent the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the society. As the detenue had indulged in continuous crimes and is a threat to the society, his preventive detention is necessitated to guarantee the constitutional rights of the other citizens. 3. The details of cases against the detenue are extracted for easy and immediate reference in the following manner: Sl.No Police Station Crime numbers and Sections invoked against the detenue. Current stage 1 Kempegowda nagar P S Crime No 136/2018 U/S 143, 147, 323, 324, 354, 355, 504, 506 R/w 149 of IPC Case acquitted 2 Basavanagudi PS Crime No 29/2020 U/S 341, 427, 307 R/w 34 of IPC Under trial 3 Mico Layout PS Crime No 219/2020 U/S 454 and 380 of IPC Under trial 4 Jigani P S Crime No 200/2020 U/S 457 and 380 of IPC Under trial 5 K.G Nagar PS Crime No 01/2021 U/S 41(D), 102 of Cr.P.C and 379 of IPC Under trial 6 K.G Nagar PS Crime No 127/2021 U/S 143, 144, 145, 341, 383, 324, 504, 506 R/w 34 of IPC Case acquitted 7 K.G Nagar PS Crime No 30/2022 U/S 399, 402 of IPC and 25-1(B)(B) of Arms Act Under trial 8 K.G Nagar PS Crime No 84/2022 U/S 324, 323, 504, 341, 506 of IPC Under trial 9 K.G Nagar PS Crime No 28/2023 U/S 143, 144, 148, 120(b), 341, 307, 504, 149 R/w 34 of IPC Under trial 10 Hanumantha nagara P S Crime No 56/2024 U/S 307 R/w 34 of IPC Under trial 11 K.G Nagar PS Crime No 48/2024 U/S 229(A) of IPC Settled in Lok Adalat 12 K.G Nagar PS Crime No 105/2024 U/S 118(1), 351(2), 352 of BNS Under trial 4. It is apt to extract the dates and events from the date of passing of the order of detention till the same was confirmed by the Government, in the following manner: Sl.No Dates Description 1. 29.01.2025 Detention order was passed by Respondent No 1 along with the grounds for detention dated 29.01.2025. 2. 29.01.2025 Detention order and Grounds of Detention was served to the detenue. 3. 31.01.2025 Copy of the Detention order forwarded to the state Government. 4. 04.02.2025 The Detention order was approved by the Respondent No.2 vide order bearing No HD 54 SST 2025 5. 05.02.2025 The order of approval was served to the detenue 6. 06.02.2025 The Detention Order along with the Government Order of Approval, were sent to the Advisory Board. 7. 10.02.2025 Detenue made a representation to the Advisory Board. 8. 13.02.2025 The representation made by the Detenue was forwarded to the Advisory Board. 9. 13.02.2025 State Government considers the representation submitted by the Detenue and rejects it. 10. 19.02.2025 Detenue was informed about the rejection of his representation 11. 20.02.2025 The communication was received from the Advisory Board regarding intimation of the date of hearing , which fixed on 25.02.2025. 12. 21.02.2025 Detenue was informed about the communication intimating the date of hearing before the Advisory Board which was fixed on 25.02.2025 13. 25.02.2025 The meeting of the Advisory Board was held. 14. 28.02.2025 The Report and the opinion of the Advisory Board was made. 15. 04.03.2025 The Report and opinion was sent to the state Government and the same was placed before the Government for consideration 16. 06.03.2025 The advisory board opinion and Report was confirmed by the 2nd Respondent. 17. 08.03.2025 The order of confirmation was served upon the detenue. 5. It is the orders of detention, approval and extension which have been called in question in this Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus. SUBMISSIONS: 6. Heard Sri.Rohan Veeranna Tigadi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.A.Belliappa, learned SPP along with Sri.Tejesh P., learned HCGP for respondents No.1 to 3. 7. Sri.Rohan Veeranna Tigadi, attacked the order of detention, approval and extension mainly on three grounds: 7(a). Firstly, the detention order is passed on stale material viz., 8 out of 12 cases mentioned in the detention order allegedly occurred two years prior to passing of detention order which are visibly clear in the table mentioned in Annexure – B to the writ petition. Firstly, the detention order is passed on stale material viz., 8 out of 12 cases mentioned in the detention order allegedly occurred two years prior to passing of detention order which are visibly clear in the table mentioned in Annexure – B to the writ petition. The last crime was registered on 18.08.2024 and the order at Annexure – A dated 29.01.2025 passed after an inordinate delay of 164 days. No material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the detenue engaged in disruption of public order during 164 days i.e., from the last date of commission of the crime and the date of passing of the detention order. 7(b). To support his submission Sri.Tigadi, has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana and Others , [ (2023) 9 SCC 587 ] wherein according to Mr.Tigadi, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the detention orders founded on stale claims are liable to be quashed because there is no proximate link between the maintenance of public order and detention of an individual. 7(c). He also refer to the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Dayavathi vs. State of Karnataka in WPHC No.50/2024 to contend when a detention order is passed after one year from the date of registration of the last crime and the order of detention is bad as there is no proximate link between the grounds of detention and the detention order. 7(d). He further refers to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shilpa vs. State of Karnataka in WPHC No.53/2024, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that there is no specific reason forthcoming in the impugned detention order passed by the Detaining Authority, which made the authorities, pass the detention order after nearly lapse of 79 calendar days since the last registration of the crime, making the detention order bad / illegal. 8. The next limb of argument canvassed by Sri.Tigadi, is that the Detaining Authority ignored several vital materials before recording its subjective satisfaction which vitiates the detention order making it as an illegal detention. He argued that out of 12 cases registered, he has been acquitted in two cases i.e., in Crime No.136/2018 and 127/2021 and had settled one case before Lokadalat i.e., in Crime No.48/2024. He argued that out of 12 cases registered, he has been acquitted in two cases i.e., in Crime No.136/2018 and 127/2021 and had settled one case before Lokadalat i.e., in Crime No.48/2024. He was on bail by the Court/Police Station in seven cases. According to him, the Detaining Authority has failed to consider the reasons given by the respective Courts while granting bail in various crimes alleged against the detenue, shows non-application of mind making the order illegal. 8(a). To buttress his arguments, he has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Malik vs. Union of India and others , [ (1992) 1 SCC 1 ] wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has arrived at a conclusion as follows: “(6) In a case where detenue is released on bail and is at liberty at the time of passing the order of detention, then the detaining authority has to necessarily rely upon them as that would be a vital ground for ordering Detention.” 8(b). He also relied upon two judgments of Bombay High Court, in the case of (i) Alakshit vs. State of Maharashtra , [2022 SCC Online Bom. 7439] and (ii) Elizabeth Raibhai Prabhudas Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special) and another , [2021 SCC Online Bom. 206] to stress on as bail has been granted in two case the detention order is bad. 9. Thirdly, Sri.Tigadi, argued that the respondent No.1 -Detaining Authority has not provided reasonable opportunity to the detenue to make his representation before the appropriate authority which violates the constitutional guarantee under Article 22(5) of Constitution of India. He argued that the detaining authority failed to provide the time limits specifically within which the detenue has to make a representation to the concerned higher authority. He refers to paragraph No.18 of the writ petition wherein, the petitioner has assailed the legality of the detention order on the ground of non-granting sufficient time in terms of the judgment of this Court in Jayamma vs. Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru , [ILR 2019 Kar 1543] wherein, this Court had directed the authority to provide the detenue a minimum of 8 days time from the date of detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police to the detenue to make his representation. He takes an exception to the case on hand by arguing that the order of detention was made on 29.01.2025 by the respondent No.1 - Police Commissioner and forwarded the same to the respondent No.2 - State of Karnataka on 31.01.2025 i.e., within a span of two days which has deprived the detenue of his right to make his representation guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. To buttress his contention on this limb of argument, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Suresh Shetty vs. State of Karnataka and Others , [2018 SCC Online Kar 4234] more specifically paragraph Nos.27 and 28 wherein, this Court has observed that as the period in which the representation needs to be filed has not been specified in the order of detention made, the right to file the representation becomes illusory. He has also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Icchu Devi Choraria vs. Union of India and Others , [ (1980) 4 SCC 531 ] for similar proposition. 9(a). He further argued that the detaining authorities have failed to mention the documents relied by the authorities on each of the grounds of detention and thus, the same has violated the fundamental right of representation guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. 9(b). To buttress his argument, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jayamma (supra). 10. With this, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to quash the orders impugned, herein on the ground that the orders are based on stale claims, non- application of mind by the authorities on vital material before recording their subjective satisfaction in the order of detention; failure to mention specific time limit within which the representation is to be submitted to the higher authorities against the order of detention, violating the right guaranteed under Article-22 of the Constitution of India as illusory; there is no proximate link between the grounds of detention and order of detention and that the authorities have failed to mention the documents relied upon each ground of detention. 11. Refuting the submissions of Sri.Tigadi, Sri.Thejesh, learned HCGP for respondents No.1 to 3, with all vehemence submitted that all the grounds urged by the petitioner are meted out by the authorities, by providing sufficient opportunity to the detenue. 11. Refuting the submissions of Sri.Tigadi, Sri.Thejesh, learned HCGP for respondents No.1 to 3, with all vehemence submitted that all the grounds urged by the petitioner are meted out by the authorities, by providing sufficient opportunity to the detenue. As there was no reform in the conduct and reluctancy to abstain from illegal activities, the authorities were left with no alternate remedy but to initiate proceedings leading to his detention. Sri.Thejesh, counters the first limb of argument of Sri.Tigadi, that the detention order is based on stale claims, by filing a detailed statement of objections to the petition. He specifically submitted that in paragraphs Nos.13 and 14 of the statement of objections, the Government has clearly stated the reasons for invoking the provisions of Act 1985. He submits that it is not on the stale claims, the prevention order has been passed. The authority has taken into consideration all the criminal activities of detenue which is endangering the public order. The activities of the detenue were not merely causing problem in law and order situation but was endangering the public order and safety. He is involved in 12 cases, out of which, 3 are booked for attempt to murder for causing grievous hurt on the vital parts of the victim. He is prowling around the locality with lethal weapons causing a greater fear and infliction of apprehension in the minds of the people, disturbing the peace of public in the locality. Though several opportunities were given to the detenue, to reform himself to correct his habitual criminal tendencies. In fact, the detenue has not been granted bail in four cases. The cases relied upon by the authority in the order of detention clearly demonstrates a continuous chain of events depicting criminal behavior. The cases against him are pending for trial. He has violated the bail conditions causing apprehensions and threatening the witnesses, which has resulted in people not coming forward to lodge complaint against him; apprehending assault and injury at his hands. Several documents were considered by the authorities prior to invoking the sparing power enjoined by the provisions of the Act, 1985. The case was listed before the Advisory Board on 25.02.2025 wherein, the detenue was produced through video conference. The Advisory Board enquired the detenue regarding service of detention order and other relevant records which are basis for his detention. Several documents were considered by the authorities prior to invoking the sparing power enjoined by the provisions of the Act, 1985. The case was listed before the Advisory Board on 25.02.2025 wherein, the detenue was produced through video conference. The Advisory Board enquired the detenue regarding service of detention order and other relevant records which are basis for his detention. The detenue agreed to the receipt of the order and the documents. Sri.Thejesh submitted that a specific contention has been taken in this regard at paragraph No.32 of the statement of objections, which we reproduce as under:- “32. It is submitted that the Detention Order and Government Order, along with the records, were placed before the Advisory Board on 06.02.2025 for its pursuance. The Advisory Board fixed the meeting for 25.02.2025, the same was intimated to the detenue on 21.02.2025. On 25.02.2025, a meeting was held by the Advisory Board, where the detenue was produced through video conference, the learned committee members of the Advisory Board enquired about the service of the Detention Order and other relevant records for which he has been detained. The detenue has agreed to the receipt of the documents and also revealed his innocence for the allegation made in all the crimes registered against him.” 12. With this, he submits that the detention order was not based on stale claims but on the yardstick of reality as reflected from the records. 13. Insofar as second ground canvassed by Sri.Tigadi, is concerned, Sri.Thejesh counters the same by stating that the authorities have considered all the vital material prior to recording satisfaction for passing, the detention order. The same is manifestly reflected in the grounds, wherein the respondent No.1 extensively considered entire case and the materials on record especially at page No.55 of the writ petition in unnumbered third paragraph (English translation of grounds for detention), which we reproduce as under:- “I have examined the reports and the material placed before me by the Police Inspector, K G Nagar Police Station through the Assistant Commissioner of Police, V Puram Sub Division, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Division Bengaluru City. On perusal of all the material placed before me, it is evident that to criminal activities have caused breach of public order and cannot be prevented un ordinary laws of the land. You have repeatedly violated the bail conditions impo on you by the Hon'ble Courts. On perusal of all the material placed before me, it is evident that to criminal activities have caused breach of public order and cannot be prevented un ordinary laws of the land. You have repeatedly violated the bail conditions impo on you by the Hon'ble Courts. Your Goonda activities are disturbing public tranqu and normal life. Because of this, public order is adversely affected and a sense of is created in certain parts of Bengaluru City. In view of the aforesaid grounds, I am convinced that you are a Goonda as defined under section 2 (g) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act 1985 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1985) and that you are likely to indulge in anti- social activities and such other activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.” 14. Insofar as the third ground canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India, regarding non-specifying of time and mentioning of the documents relied upon by the authorities on each of the grounds of detention is concerned, Sri.Thejesh, counters the same through his statement of objections especially at paragraphs No.26, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34. He submitted that detention order was passed on 29.01.2025, the same was communicated and served on the detenue on the very same day, to provide him a reasonable opportunity to make meaningful representation to the concerned authority, entire grounds of detention were read over to the detenue in the language known to him i.e., in Kannada to his satisfaction. The order of detention was forwarded to the Government on 31.01.2025 for approval and same was approved on 04.02.2025. The detenue submitted his representation to the Government only on 10.02.2025, which the authorities promptly forwarded to the Advisory Board on 13.02.2025. The State Government reviewed and rejected the representation on 13.02.2025, which was informed to the detenue on 19.02.2025. Entire records including the detention order and Government Order approving the same were placed before Advisory Board on 13.02.2025. The Advisory Board fixed its meeting on 25.02.2025, which date was duly informed to the detenue on 21.02.2025. The State Government reviewed and rejected the representation on 13.02.2025, which was informed to the detenue on 19.02.2025. Entire records including the detention order and Government Order approving the same were placed before Advisory Board on 13.02.2025. The Advisory Board fixed its meeting on 25.02.2025, which date was duly informed to the detenue on 21.02.2025. The Advisory Board after considering the entire material on record confirmed the detention order on 28.02.2025 and communicated to the Government on 04.03.2025 and the Government on 06.03.2025, confirmed the order of detention for a period of one year. He argued that the detenue is in the habit of jumping bails, threatening witnesses and misused the freedom afforded by the Courts. There was no improvement in the conduct of the detenue to reform himself availing the opportunities enabled to him by the Courts while granting bail. He is in the habit of prowling with his gang in the locality with lethal weapons, causing fear in the minds of people of the locality which in turn resulting in the peace being disturbed affecting the public order, which ultimately made the authorities as a last resort to invoke the provisions of Act, 1985. Insofar as non-providing of 8 days time to make representation, Sri.Thejesh, submitted that there is no time limit mentioned in the provisions. He further stated that the time limit observed in the order of this Court in Jayamma stated supra, is on the basis of facts of the case which are clearly forthcoming in paragraph No.2 of the said judgment. In the present case, the detenue was given opportunity by supplying the copy of the order of detention along with the documents which he admitted before the Advisory Board. Hyper technical argument of non-mentioning of time will not overweigh the consideration of public order and safety. The Detaining Authority has considered all the documents and the law to reach the subjective satisfaction, passed the order in the facts and circumstances of the present case, which do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 15. To buttress his argument he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND JOINT SECRETARY (COFEPOSA) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE VS. DIMPLE HAPPY DHAKAD, (2019) 20 SCC 609 and ABDUL SATHAR IBRAHIM MANIK VS. 15. To buttress his argument he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND JOINT SECRETARY (COFEPOSA) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE VS. DIMPLE HAPPY DHAKAD, (2019) 20 SCC 609 and ABDUL SATHAR IBRAHIM MANIK VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, [ (1992) 1 SCC 1 ] 16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials, the only point which comes up for consideration before us: “Whether the orders impugned stated supra are sustainable in law?” ANALYSIS:- Our answer to the point raised supra is in the Negative for the following:- REASONS 17. It is not in dispute that there are twelve cases lodged against the detenue in several Police Stations of the Bengaluru city which we have already extracted above. The only exception which is taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the case, is that the detention order was passed on stale claims and there is no proximate link between the grounds of detention, in as much as the detention order was passed after an inordinate delay of 164 days from the last crime registered against the petitioner. Further, that the Detaining Authority failed to consider vital materials while recording its subjective satisfaction, which is the pulse of the provisions contained in the Act, 1985. Further, there is no specific time period fixed in the detention order for submission of representation to the higher authorities by the detenue. He further argued that the Detaining Authorities have failed to mention the documents relied upon by them on each of the ground of detention, which has resulted in violation of the fundamental rights of the detenue guaranteed under Article-22(5) of Constitution of India and also against the judgment of this court in the case of Jayamma supra. 18. Whereas the learned HCGP argued that, mere non-mentioning of time in the detention order by itself will not make the order bad. The order passed by the Detaining Authority was after arriving at subjective satisfaction, considering all the documents before it and placed its reasons and grounds on the basis of documents, after careful analysis of the same, keeping in mind the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court and all other High Court across the country. The order passed by the Detaining Authority was after arriving at subjective satisfaction, considering all the documents before it and placed its reasons and grounds on the basis of documents, after careful analysis of the same, keeping in mind the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court and all other High Court across the country. The contention that there is a delay of 164 days would itself, is not the criteria to view the order of detention in a tinted glass. The Detaining Authority has the expertise in the field and having perused the entire documents, recorded a subjective satisfaction, as the detention is clearly a preventive measure; it cannot be considered as punitive in nature but the same is required as a measure of precaution to prevent the mischief to the community at large, on the reasonable probability of suspicion and anticipation of the mischief, which the detenue may commit, if he is let free considering his past antecedents and the continuation of illegal activities which has created a sense of fear in certain parts of Bengaluru city, disturbing the public order. Under these circumstances, the detention authority rightly exercised its power vested under the provisions of the Act 1985. 19. It is forthcoming in the grounds of detention attached to the detention order in unnumbered paragraph No.4, onwards till paragraph No.7, at page Nos.42 and 43 of writ petition (English translation of Kannada in grounds of detention), which has got a bearing on the subjective satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority while passing the detention order. For easy reference, we extract the same as under: “Since, your child hood days, you have joined with bad elements of your friends group and thereby developed bad habits and started indulging in attempt to murder, assault, HBT, preparation for committing dacoity, riots, criminal intimidation and other such criminal activities since 2018. You have committed offences which are punishable under law and involved in anti-social and rowdy activities. “You along with your associates have formed a group of your own and armed with lethal weapons and prowling on public places, thereby creating fear in the minds of general public and involved in the criminal and anti-social activities rowdy activities. Despite, you were arrested and released on court bail, you have not reformed yourself and continued in criminal and rowdy activities, you have violated the bail conditions imposed while granting bail. Despite, you were arrested and released on court bail, you have not reformed yourself and continued in criminal and rowdy activities, you have violated the bail conditions imposed while granting bail. You have developed attitude of obstructing the trial so that the trial may not be conducted in free and fair manner. You have caused immense apprehension in the minds of the general public. In order to keep close surveillance to control your criminal activities and also to prevent you from indulging in the criminal activities, "A" category rowdy sheet was opened against you in K.G.Nagar Police Station on 13.12.2023 vide order No.CC/300/ACP-05/2023, dated 13.12.2023 of ACP V V Puram sub division and presently 'A' rowdy sheet being maintained in Kempegowdanagar Police station, and also MOB files are maintained in the criminal cases where you had arrested. It is found that it is not possible to prevent your criminal and anti-social activities, with the ordinary course of law. Therefore, it is expedient to initiate action under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985. 20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest pronouncement in the case of Ameena Begum supra after considering the entire facts of the case, at paragraph Nos.27 and 28, has explained the circumstances and the test to determine the legality of the order of the preventive detention. The same reads as under: “27. Be that as it may, culling out of the Principles of law flowing from the relevant decisions in the field, our understanding of the law for deciding the legality of an order of preventive detention is that even without appropriate pleadings to assail such an order, if circumstances appear there from raising a doubt of the detaining authority misconceiving his own powers, the Court ought not to shut its eyes; even not venturing to make any attempt to investigate the sufficiency of the materials, an enquiry can be made by the Court into the authority's notions of his power. Without being remotely concerned about the sufficiency or otherwise of the materials on which detention has been ordered, the Court would be justified to draw a conclusion, on proof from the order itself, that the detaining authority failed to realise the extent of his own powers. Without being remotely concerned about the sufficiency or otherwise of the materials on which detention has been ordered, the Court would be justified to draw a conclusion, on proof from the order itself, that the detaining authority failed to realise the extent of his own powers. This is quite apart from questioning the action for want of sufficient materials that were before the detaining authority. The authority for the detention is the order of detention itself, which the detenu or the Court can read. Such a reading of the order would disclose the manner in which the activity of the detenu was viewed by the detaining authority to be prejudicial to maintenance of public order and what exactly he intended should not be permitted to happen. Any order of a detaining authority evincing that the same runs beyond his powers, as are actually conferred, would not amount to a valid order made under the governing preventive detention law and be vulnerable on a challenge being laid. 28. In the circumstances of a given case, a constitutional court when called upon to test the legality of orders of preventive detention would be entitled to examine whether, 28.1. The order is based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the absence of such satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of fact or law, upon which validity of the exercise of the power is predicated, would be the sine qua non for the exercise of the power not being satisfied; 28.2. In reaching such requisite satisfaction, the detaining authority has applied its mind to all relevant circumstances and the same is not based on material extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute; 28.3. Power has been exercised for achieving the purpose for which it has been conferred, or exercised for an improper purpose, not authorised by the statute, and is therefore ultra vires; 28.4. The detaining authority has acted independently or under the dictation of another body; 28.5. The detaining authority, by reason of self-created rules of policy or in any other manner not authorised by the governing statute, has disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of each individual case; 28.6. The detaining authority has acted independently or under the dictation of another body; 28.5. The detaining authority, by reason of self-created rules of policy or in any other manner not authorised by the governing statute, has disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of each individual case; 28.6. The satisfaction of the detaining authority rests on materials which are of rationally probative value, and the detaining authority has given due regard to the matters as per the statutory mandate; 28.7. The satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in mind existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him or is based on material which is stale; 28.8. The ground(s) for reaching the requisite satisfaction is/are such which an individual, with some degree of rationality and prudence, would consider as connected with the fact and relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry in of respect whereof the satisfaction is to be reached; 28.9. The grounds on which the order of preventive detention rests are not vague but are precise, pertinent and relevant which, with sufficient clarity, inform the detenu the satisfaction for the detention, giving him the opportunity to make a suitable representation; and 28.10. The timelines, as provided under the law, have been strictly adhered to.” 21. We have examined the order passed by the Detaining Authority, the approval and the extension of the same by the Government vide Annexures-A, B and C respectively. It is manifestly clear from the reading of the order of detention and the grounds attached to the same, that the Detaining Authority considered all the past antecedents and the continuing illegal activities on the basis of the reports, the conduct of the detenue in slowing the trials commenced against him in various cases, jumping over bail, threatening witnesses has recorded a clear subjective satisfaction while passing the order of detention, which we have already extracted hereinabove. A mere delay in passing the preventive detention order will not make an order bad and vitiated. There is a proximate link between the grounds and the order of detention. So far as non-mentioning of specific time is concerned it is not a criteria to hold an order as invalid, as the hyper technical grounds would not over-weigh the public order and safety. 22. There is a proximate link between the grounds and the order of detention. So far as non-mentioning of specific time is concerned it is not a criteria to hold an order as invalid, as the hyper technical grounds would not over-weigh the public order and safety. 22. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly concedes that there is no time frame fixed in the provisions, contained in Act 1985. As could be seen from the records placed before us, the detenue has admitted service of the detention order and supply of documents on which the order is founded on the same day before the Advisory Committee. He has submitted his representation on 10.02.2025, which has been considered and rejected by the higher authority recording their reason for the same. 23. It is a trite law that the Court while in judicial review on the detention orders are not expected to subscribe its view on to the subjective satisfaction recorded by the authorities as the orders passed are not susceptible to the objective determination. Rather the provision says that it is the subjective satisfaction as the preventive detention is largely precautionary and based on suspicion. As could be seen from the provisions of Act 1985, which enjoins the Authority, the power to pass an order, which is preventive in nature, as the words used especially in sub-section (1) and (2) of Section-3, are ‘if satisfied’ this manifestly imports subjective satisfaction on the part of Detaining Authority before an order of detention can be made. This being the nature of the proceedings, it is impossible to conceive how it can be possibly regarded as objective assessment, which has been contended and argued on behalf of the petitioner, as the determination is left by the legislature to the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, which by reasons of its special position, and expertise is best suited to decide in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, after verifying the documents of the case. This being the intent of Legislature, the Court cannot be invited to consider the propriety or sufficiency of grounds on which the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is based. This being the intent of Legislature, the Court cannot be invited to consider the propriety or sufficiency of grounds on which the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is based. The Court cannot on a review of the grounds subscribe its own opinion for that of the Detaining Authority, as the provision says, it is subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, which is relevant unless such satisfaction is arrived at without any basis / evidence. It follows it does not mean that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority is wholly immune from judicial review. The order of recording subjective satisfaction is therefore, on the anvil of material is there on record to arrive at the decision for preventive detention. 24. We are satisfied that the Detaining Authority has taken care of all the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court and applied its mind on the documents placed before it, considered the case as per the mandate of statute under which it has exercised its power in a reasonable manner and found that there is rationale in the material placed before it to come to a conclusion that there exists grounds and reasons for the detention of the detenue so as to prevent any breach of public order. The orders approving the same and extension to the maximum period by the Government, found to be based on the grounds stated in the order of detention. 25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DIMPLE HAPPY DHAKAD supra in paragraph Nos.43 to 46 has held that the personal liberty of an individual has to be subordinated within the reasonable bounds to the good of the people. Order of detention is clearly a preventive measure and device to afford protection to the society. When the preventive detention is aimed to ensure the safety and security and a balance has to be struck between the liberty of an individual and the needs of the society, the same is liable to be upheld. Paragraphs Nos.43 to 46 of the judgment are reproduced as under: “43. The learned Senior Counsel for detenus submitted that personal liberty and compliance of procedural safeguards are the prime consideration and since the procedural requirements are not complied with violating the personal liberty of the detenus, the High Court rightly quashed the detention orders and the same cannot be interfered with. The learned Senior Counsel for detenus submitted that personal liberty and compliance of procedural safeguards are the prime consideration and since the procedural requirements are not complied with violating the personal liberty of the detenus, the High Court rightly quashed the detention orders and the same cannot be interfered with. As discussed earlier, in the case in hand, the procedural safeguards are complied with. Insofar as the contention that the courts should lean in favour of upholding the personal liberty, we are conscious that the Constitution and the Supreme Court are very zealous of upholding the personal liberty of an individual. But the liberty of an individual has to be subordinated within reasonable bounds to the good of the people. Order of detention is clearly a preventive measure and devised to afford protection to the society. When the preventive detention is aimed to protect the safety and security of the nation, balance has to be struck between liberty of an individual and the needs of the society. 44. Observing that the object of preventive detention is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept and to prevent him from doing so, in Naresh Kumar Goyal v.Union of India 23, it was held as under: (SCC p. 280, para 8) "8. It is trite law that an order of detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive action, but a preventive action, avowed object of which being to prevent the antisocial and subversive elements from imperilling the welfare of the country or the security of the nation or from disturbing the public tranquillity or from indulging in smuggling activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, etc. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The authorities on the subject have consistently taken the view that preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it, and to prevent him from doing so." 45. Considering the scope of preventive detention and observing that it is aimed to protect the safety and interest of the society, in State of Maharashtra v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande24, it was held as under: (SCC p. 629, paras 36-37) "36. Liberty of an individual has to be subordinated, within reasonable bounds, to the good of the people. Considering the scope of preventive detention and observing that it is aimed to protect the safety and interest of the society, in State of Maharashtra v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande24, it was held as under: (SCC p. 629, paras 36-37) "36. Liberty of an individual has to be subordinated, within reasonable bounds, to the good of the people. The framers of the Constitution were conscious of the practical need of preventive detention with a view to striking a just and delicate balance between need and necessity to preserve individual liberty and personal freedom on the one hand and security and safety of the country and interest of the society on the other hand. Security of State, maintenance of public order and services essential to the community, prevention of smuggling and black marketing activities, etc. demand effective safeguards in the larger interests of sustenance of a peaceful democratic way of life. 37. In considering and interpreting preventive detention laws, courts ought to show greatest concern and solitude in upholding and safeguarding the fundamental right of liberty of the citizen, however, without forgetting the historical background in which the necessity an – unhapp? necessity - was felt by the makers of the Constitution in incorporating provisions of preventive detention in the Constitution itself. While no doubt it is the duty of the court to safeguard against any encroachment on the life and liberty of Individuals, at the same time the authorities who have the responsibility to docharge the fonctions vested in them under the law of the country should not be impeded or interfered with without justification (vide A.K. Roy v Union of India, Bhut Nath Mete v. State of W.D., State of W.B. v. Ashok Dey and ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla)." (emphasis supplied) 46. The court must be conscious that the satisfaction of the detaining authority is "subjective" in nature and the court cannot substitute its opinion for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and interfere with the order of detention. It does not mean that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is immune from judicial reviewability. By various decisions, the Supreme Court has carved out areas within which the validity of subjective satisfaction can be tested. It does not mean that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is immune from judicial reviewability. By various decisions, the Supreme Court has carved out areas within which the validity of subjective satisfaction can be tested. In the present case, huge volume of gold had been smuggled into the country unabatedly for the last three years and about 3396 kg of the gold has been brought into India during the period from July 2018 to March 2019 camouflaging it with brass metal scrap. The detaining authority recorded finding that this has serious impact on the economy of the nation. The detaining authority also satisfied that the detenus have propensity to indulge in the same act of smuggling and passed the order of preventive detention, which is a preventive measure. Based on the documents and the materials placed before the detaining authority and considering the individual role of the detenus, the detaining authority satisfied itself as to the detenus' continued propensity and their inclination to indulge in acts of smuggling in a planned manner to the detriment of the economic security of the country that there is a need to prevent the detenus from smuggling goods. The High Court erred in interfering with the satisfaction of the detaining authority and the impugned judgment¹ cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 26. Having considered the Judicial pronouncements supra in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the orders challenged in the writ petition, does not suffer from any infirmities as such, the same do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition fails is dismissed. 27. No order as to costs.