JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---By this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, the wife of Shankar @ Shankrya Ramchandra Lokhande (hereinafter referred to as the detenu), has challenged the order of detention passed by Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai dated 5-8-2000 against the detenu under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as MPDA Act).

2. Although several grounds have been raised in the writ petition, however, in our view, it would be futile to embark upon detail investigation into each one of them, for we are inclined to accept the plea that the detention order is vitiated and deserves to be set aside because of the inordinate and unexplained delay in passing the same. We would therefore, confine our discussion in the present judgment only with regard to the said question.

3. For considering the question raised before us, it is wholly unnecessary to advert to the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu along with the impugned order of detention. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the detenu was arrested on 18-1-2000 in connection with criminal case registered against him being C.R. No. 23 of 2000. It is not in dispute that on the same day the detenu was enlarged on bail by a Court of competent jurisdiction. However, the detenu came to be arrested pursuant to the impugned order of detention dated 5-8-2000, on 8-8-2000. In this background it is urged that the detention order is based on the incident which relates back to 7 months, that too in respect of which the detenu has been enlarged on bail on 18-1-2000. According to the petitioner there is inordinate delay in passing of the impugned order of detention on account of which the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority with regard to the existence of the live link is under a cloud. The ground in this regard has been articulated in para (ix) of the writ petition, which reads thus :---

"ix) The petitioner says and submits that the alleged incident has taken place on 11th January, 2000 and the said order is issued on 5th August, 2000 i.e. after a lapse of seven months after the incident. As a result the delay in issuing an order has snapped the live link between the said alleged incident and the need for detention. It is also shown that the Detaining Authority was not serious while issuing the said impugned detention order against the detenu and as a matter of routine the said order has been issued. The petitioner further submits that during the period of seven months between the alleged incident and the issuance of order, no offence has been registered against the detenu. It clearly shows that the detenu has not indulged in any prejudicial activities after the alleged incident of January, 2000 and there was no need for the Detaining Authority to take such strict measures of preventive detention against the detenu. The petitioner says that the said delay of seven months has vitiated a subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority."

4. In response to the writ petition the respondents have filed in all three affidavits. Amongst the said affidavits, reliance was placed on para 14 of the affidavit of Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, the Detaining Authority, which commences from page 52 and ends at page 59 of the paper book. The substance of the said affidavit for explaining the delay in passing of the impugned detention order asserts that although the incident referred to in the grounds of detention is of 11-1-2000, in respect of which the detenu was arrested on 18-1-2000 and came to be released on the same day, however, two in-camera statements came to be recorded on the 16th and 18th of March, 2000 respectively in connection with separate incidents which took place on 2-2-2000 and last week of December 1999 implicating the det