JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who describes himself as brother of the detenue-Kailash Mangiram Jadhav has impugned the order dated 12-1-2001 passed by the first respondent Mr. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) Amendment 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act).

The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 12-1-2001 was served on the detenu on 18-1-2001 and their true copies are annexed an Annexure A and B respectively to this petition.

2. The prejudicial activities of the detenu which prompted the first respondent to pass the impugned order are contained in grounds of detention (Annexure B).

A perusal of Annexure B would show that the impugned detention order is founded on three C.Rs. namely C.R. No. 61/2000 under sections 341, 323, 504, 34 I.P.C. registered on the basis of a complaint dated 24-2-2000 lodged by Benthu Fernandes at Byculla Police Station, Bombay, C.R. No. 141/2000 under section 326 I.P.C. registered on the basis of a complaint dated 11-5-2000 lodged by Deepak Shivram Waghmare at Byculla Police Station and C.R. No. 213/2000 under sections 332, 506(II), I.P.C. registered on the basis of a complaint dated 17-7-2000 lodged by Head Constables Subhash Dattatray Deshmukh at Byculla Police Station and in camera statements of two witnesses namely A and B which were recorded on 1-9-2000 and 2-9-2000 respectively.

Since in our view, a reference to the prejudicial activities of the detenu contained in the said C.Rs. and in-camera statements is not necessary for the adjudication of ground No. 6(B) of the petition on which ground in our view this writ petition deserves to succeed, we are not adverting to them.

3. Ground No. 6(B) in short is that in between the second in camera statement dated 2-9-2000 and 12-1-2001, the date on which the impugned order was passed, there is a gap of nearly 4½ months and on account of the said gap the live link between the prejudical activities of the detenu and the rationale of clamping a detention order on him has been snapped resulting in the detenu order being rendered unsustainable in law.

To fortify his submission pleaded in ground No. 6(B), Mr. Tripathi learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1982(2) Bom.C.R. 218 (Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shah, Petitioner v. State of Maharashtra and another, respondents)1. He specifically invited our attention to the following lines which appear at page 13 of the said decision :

"Delay ipso facto in passing an order of detention after an incident is not fatal to the detention of a person, for in certain cases delay may be unavoidable and reasonable. What is required by law is that the delay must be satisfactorily explained by the Detaining Authority."

Mr. Tripathi urged that since in this case there has been no satisfactory explanation from the side of the respondents regarding the delay in the issuance of the detention order, the impugned order has been rendered illegal and cannot be sustained in law.

4. Ground No. 6(B) has been replied to in para 10 of the return of the Detaining Authority.

A perusal of these said para would show that the second in-camera statement was recorded on 2-9-2000. On 4-9-2000, the proposal for detaining the detenu was forwarded through proper channel. On 5-9-2000, it was placed before the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone III, who on the said date gave his endorsement. Thereafter, the papers came to be forwarded to the Senior Inspector of Police, PCB, CID, Bombay who after going through them prepared a detailed note and forwarded them to the Dy. Commissioner of Police (Preventive) vide his endorsement dated 19-9-20