Daud, J.- This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to an order of detention made on 27-7-1989 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974).

2. The detenu was travelling by an S.T. bus from Bombay to Karad. Acting on information, certain Officers of the Customs and Central Excise, Preventive Branch, Satara Division were on the alert at the Satara Bus Station from the evening of 11-10-1988. In the early hours of -12-10-1988, came S.T. bus bearing registration No. M.W.Q 972. The detenu was occupying seat No. 21. He was apprehended and in the presence of panchas a search of the bus was taken by the Officers. Under seat No. 21, the Officers came across a cloth bag the ownership of which was denied by the detenu when questioned on the subject. The bag was opened and found to contain amongst other things a brown paper wrapped over gold pieces. The said pieces were attached and on the person of detenu were found currency notes of the face value of Rs. 7,420, three bus tickets and a visiting card of a shop "Sha Sardarmal Kasturchand Saraf of Bombay. The gold pieces were seized under the reasonable belief that they had been smuggled. The detenu when questioned admitted that the contraband had been found in a package lying underneath his seat. He further maintained that he had no connection with the said package. From 12-10-88 till about 18-10-1988 the Customs Officers questioned various persons. Indue course, the detenu was enlarged on bail. On 22-2-1989, a proposal was put up to detain the detenu under the COFEPOSA Act. Further to this proposal various material was collected from the last week of February 1989 up to 11-4-1989. On 11-4-1989 a draft of the grounds of detention was prepared and translations etc. sent for. It

was on 27-7-1989 that the impugned order of detention together with the grounds and documents were ready. The detenu was served with these on 10-8-1989.

3. Many grounds have been taken by the petitioner who is the brother of the detenu to assail the detention. Only one ground suffices to void the detention and that is to be found at para 8, clause (G) of the petition. The contention is that having regard to the inordinate delay between the alleged prejudicial activity and the order of detention, the latter is punitive in character. The alleged satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenu was likely to indulge in prejudicial activity was a mere pretence as the live-link between the prejudicial activity detected and that apprehended in the future must always subsist in case a valid order of detention is to issue. The respondents have not filed a return. However, learned Counsel representing respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 6 has furnished certain information from the papers available to her. These show that the authorities were enquiring into the matter from 12-10-1988 to 18-10-1988. What took place between 18-10-1988 and 22-2-1989 is not known. Again from 22-2-1989 till about 29-4-1989 there was a flurry of activity relating only to the preparation of papers and their translation etc. Additional documents were called for and received sometime in May

1989. Even thereafter one expected some sense of urgency on the part of the detaining authority, but to no avail. It was only on 27-7-1989 that the detaining authority passed the impugned order. Counsel for the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 6 argues that in COFEPOSA matters a great deal of material requires to be looked into and mere delay is not enough to snap the live-link spoken of above. She relies upon Rajendrakumar Natvarlal Shah v. State of Gujarat and ors.1 in support of the contention put forth by her. As this case has some bearing on the point in issue, we think it necessary to make a somewhat detailed reference thereto. The factual position in that case was that the detenu was an old hand at bootlegging. Two cases had been instituted against him