Unexplained delay in passing a detention order can sever the live link between alleged activities and the order, rendering the detention order unsustainable.

S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the detaining authority dated 29th September 2014 under section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the 'COFEPOSA').

2. This detention order dated 29th September, 2014 at Annexure 'A' alleges that the detaining authority is satisfied that with a view to prevent the detenu in future from smuggling of goods, it is necessary to make the detention order.

3. In the grounds of detention and which run into about 98 paragraphs it is narrated as to how the detenu engaged himself in smuggling activities in an organised manner over a period of more than nine years. That he had established deep links with other members of the smuggling syndicate and therefore, it is required to pass this detention order.

4. Facts necessary to appreciate the grounds on which this order has been assailed are that 132.88 metric tonnes of red sanders valued at Rs.53.15 crores were seized by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence from seven containers on 15th July 2013 at the Container Corporation of India yard at Nhava Sheva. Another 183.350 metric tonnes of red sanders valued at Rs.7.34 crores came to be seized from one container at JWC Logistics Yard. A show cause notice dated 13th January 2014 and a Corrigendum dated 13th January, 2014 came to be issued against 27 noticees including the detenu. The detenu surrendered himself before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai on 13th January, 2014. He was remanded to custody till 16th January, 2014 for investigation. Four statements under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 came to be recorded between 13th to 18th January, 2014. The detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody till 29th January, 2014. He retracted his statements and before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. His remand to judicial custody was extended from time to time. An application for bail came to be rejected on 21st February, 2014. The detenu filed another application for bail in the Sessions Court which allowed it on 12th March, 2014. The detenu was released on 13th March, 2014.

4A. Mr. Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner invited our attention to ground A at page 9 of the Paper Book. He submitted that the impugned detention order is vitiated by an inordinate unexplained delay of 6 months and 16 days. Mr. Singh submits that from the date of his release on bail is 13th January 2014 but the detention order was made in September 2014. The delay in making the same is unexplained. The reasons for the same in any event are unacceptable and unreasonable. In that regard, and in support of this, our attention is invited to the two affidavits in reply.

5. The detenu's Advocate filed a reply to the show cause notice on 29th January, 2014. A pre-detention representation was submitted to the detaining authority on 11th February, 2014. Another reply to the show cause notice was submitted on 10th April, 2014. Subsequent pre-detention representation dated 26th April 2012 was submitted to the detaining authority. The detention order was made on 29th September, 2014 and executed on 10th April, 2015. The detenu has been lodged in Central Prison, Nasik Road.

6. In the first affidavit which is filed by Mr. M.P.Madhavan Assistant Director in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence particularly in paragraph 4.1 thereof, Mr. Singh submits that in dealing with para 7A of the petition, which is the ground of delay the Assistant Director submitted that there was no delay on the part of the sponsoring authority in forwarding the proposal for preventive detention of the detenu. The detenu was absconding after the seizure of the material namely red sanders at Nhava Sheva on 15th July 2013. He was absconding for six months and surrendered before the trial Court on the day of issuance of