( 1 ) PAWAN Kumar, petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 10. 5. 1993 passed under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in pursuance of which, he was detained on 20. 9. 1993. The order, aforesaid, was pasted by Shri Mahinder Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance for the detention of Pawan Kumar and to be detained with a view to preventing him in future from acting in any marine prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. The grounds of detention were served upon the petitioner simultaneously when he was detained.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to the passing of the detention order against the petitioner are that the Delhi Zonal Office of Enforcement Directorate had information about one Atam Prakash indulging in illegal sale/purchase of foreign exchange and sending the same to one Nirmal Dhanuka of Kathmandu, Nepal through some persons including the petitioner Pawan Kumar: On the basis of specific information, officers of the Enforcement Directorate apprehended the petitioner while going to Kathmandu by Royal Nepal Airlines Flight No. RA-218 on 26. 1. 1993. During interrogation, Pawan Kumar admitted having kept concealed 2 packets of foreign exchange in his ractum, which, he voluntarily ejected out and on opening, foreign currency of 750 ponds, DM 2000 and USD 3085 besides one loose sheet were recovered from Bundle No. I while Ponds 1400, USD 9022, Canadian Dollars 250 and DM 4000 were found from the second bundle. In his statement, under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, Pawan Kumar admitted the recovery of the foreign exchange in the manner stated above, and also gave facts as to how the foreign exchange was being given to him by Atam Prakash and how he was taking the same to D Kathmandu. Atam Prakash, Vinod Kumar and others were also examined and all the facts were considered before passing of the impugned order.

( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

( 4 ) THE petitioner has taken up many grounds to challenge the order of detention. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his submissions only on one ground i. e. the inordinate delay in the execution of the detention order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has not been any valid explanation as to why the detention order dated 10. 5. 1993 was not executed till 20. 9. 1993 and that on account of absence of any valid explanation, the detention order is liable to be quashed. These averments have been made in Ground No. "g" and "h" in the writ petition. The same read as under:- G) Because the petitioner say and submit that there is a long and unreasonable delay in the execution of the detaining order. The order of detention has been passed against the petitioner on 10. 5. 1993 and the petitioner was all the time available at his house. No application for cancellation of bail was moved, no complaint has been filed against him, nor he was summoned by the Sponsoring authorities or by the detaining authority. Order of detention has been served upon him on 20th September, 1993 at his residence. Petitioner submit that there is no live and proximate link between the incident mentioned in the grounds of detention and the avowed purpose of the detention. The link has already been snapped. The long and unreasonable delay is bad in law. H) Because the petitioner submit that the order of detention has been executed upon him after the period of approximately five months, petitioner was not evading his arrest, nor he was absconding. No proceedings under section 7 of the COFESA has been initiated against the petitioner, shows the negligence and slip-shod manner in which the liberty of the petitioner has been curtailed by the detailing authority. The satisfaction of the detaining