Antony Dominic, J.

The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 order of detention issued under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA Act' for short).

2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 28/10/11, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence received intelligence report about the attempt to smuggle out a consignment of red sanders, an item prohibited for export under the Export-Import Policy framed under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, and also a notified item under the Convention of International Trade Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna, through ICTT, Vallarpadam. It is stated that thereupon the officers of the DRI, Cochin conducted surveillance at the gates of ICTT which ultimately led to interception of lorry bearing Regn.No.KL-11 U 3069, carrying a container which arrived at the ICTT. The container was stacked with red sanders logs weighing 13.69 metric tons. The goods along with the container and the lorry were seized under mahazar and summons was issued to Sri.K.P.Sibu and Sri.V.S.Unnikrishnan. Their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were recorded. In these statements, it was revealed that attempt to smuggle out red sanders was at the instance of Sri.P.AnilKumar (hereinafter referred to as the detenu). Accordingly Sri.Anilkumar was arrayed as accused No.1 in the case registered and was arrested on 31/10/11. He was released on bail pursuant to Ext.P4 order dated 4/11/11. Subsequently, Ext.P1 order of detention under the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act was issued on 13/2/12 and Sri.Anilkumar was arrested on 9/12/12. He continues in detention and in the meanwhile, his mother has filed this writ petition challenging the detention.

3. When the case was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner raised three contentions. The first contention raised was that, since the date of occurrence was on 28/10/11, Ext.P1 order of detention passed on 13/2/12 is a delayed one and therefore is an illegal order. The second contention raised was that though Ext.P1 order of detention was passed on 13/2/12, the detenu was arrested only on 9/12/12. Hence, according to the counsel, there was inordinate and unexplained delay in the execution of the order vitiating the detention of the detenu.

4. Thirdly, learned counsel contended that detenu was not familiar with Malayalam and this was brought to the notice of the respondents in Ext.P5 retraction statement. In spite of it, the documents supplied to him were in Malayalam which affected his valuable rights of making representations. This also according to the counsel vitiated the order. Learned counsel therefore contended that his valuable rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stood violated rendering Ext.P1 and further detention illegal and unconstitutional.

5. We shall consider the first and second contentions together. The delay in passing the order and its execution can be fatal provided the delay is unexplained and inordinate. This question has been considered by this Court as also the Apex Court on various occasions and we shall make reference to some of the judgments that were cited at the bar. The first judgment that was relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala (1990 (1) KLT 440 (SC)), where in para 11 to 13, the delay both regarding passing of the order and in its execution was considered by the Apex Court and it was held thus;

11. The conspectus of the above decisions can be summarised thus. The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable