1) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2) HEARD counsel on both sides. From the facts of the case, it is evident that the house of the main culprit Sirajudeen was searched on 30/11/1986 and his statement under S. 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was recorded on the same day. In the course of his statement, he disclosed the name of the present detenu as one of the persons involved in the act of smuggling. Thereafter, the matter was under investigation. It appears that the detenu had applied for bail and he was enlarged on bail. The detention order was however passed as late as on 7/10/1987 and was executed on 23/05/1988. One of the conten- tions raised by the detenu is that the Detaining Authority has not explained the reasons why the detention order was delayed for almost 11 months, after the involvement of the petitioner was revealed to the concerned authorities. In the counter filed in this behalf, the Detaining Authority has contended that even though the seizure was effected on 30/11/1986 the investigation ended in April 1987 i.e. five months after the seizure, even thereafter the proposal for detention was not moved till 26/08/1987. This delay of almost four months is sought to