JUDGMENT

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.:- This writ petition is filed by the detenu, P. U. Iqbal under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention dated 21-8-1989 passed by the second respondent in exercise of powers conferred by S. 3(i)(ii)(iii) and (iv) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing the detenu from abetting the smuggling of goods and directing him to be interned in the Central prison, Trivandrum in pursuance of the said mittimus. Following the above order, the first respondent (Union of India) by its order dated 7-9-90 made a declaration u/ S. 9(i) of the Act and thereafter passed an order u/ S. 10 of the Act that "the detention shall continue for a period of 2 years from 9-8-90". The circumstances under which the impugned order was issued and the materials on the basis of which the detaining authority drew his subjective satisfaction are well set out in the grounds of detention. We feel that the entire facts of the case are not required to be proliferated as we are now inclined to dispose of this matter on a short ground, namely whether there was an unreasonable delay in executing the order of detention from the date of passing of the detention order throwing considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as regards the necessity to detain the petitioner. The facts of the case disclose that the impugned order was passed on 21-8-1989 and it was executed only on 10-8-1990 that is nearly a delay of one year from the date of the passing of the detention order.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this inordinate and unreasonable delay between the date of the order of detention and the date of arrest of the detenu negatives the real and genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as regards the necessity for detaining the petitioner and therefore, the order impugned here is liable to be set aside on this ground.

3. As the second respondent has not offered any satisfactory and proper explanation for the delay in execution of the detention order by giving necessary materials, on the directions of this Court an additional counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent in October, 1991 giving the following particulars.

4. According to the second respondent, this order of detention deted 21-8-1989 was received by the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur on 1-9-1989 who in turn directed the Circle Inspector of Police, Guruvayur to apprehend the warrantee and that the Circle Inspector of Police reported the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur on 16th September, 2nd October, 13th November, 1989 and 5th January 1990 that the warrantee namely the detenu was reportedly working at Bombay and the chances of his visit to h native place were awaited. Not being satisfied with the reports of the circle Inspector of Police, the S.P. by his letter dated 24-11-1989 directed the Circle Inspector of Police to arrange to secure the detenu and execute the detention order at Bombay with the assistance of the local police. Despite the repeated orders of the S. P. dated 31st January, 12th and 19th February, 14th and 22nd March, 1990 directing the Circle Inspector to send reports about the compliance of his direction in executing the warrant, the Inspector sent a reply on 30-3-1990 to the S. P. informing that the police officers were being sent to Bombay to arrest the warrantee (i.e. the detenu). On 2-4-1990 the S. P. reported to the Government that the action was underway to execute the detention order by deputing officers to Bombay. On 23-4-1990, the S.P. asked a report about the stage of the matter from the Inspector of Police who thereupon on 20-5-90 reported to the S.P. that the police party could not arrest the petitioner and execute the warrant. Then on 14-5-1990, the Go