Order of detention not vitiate.

NAINAR SUNDARAM, J.:

1. In the present case coveting the release of the detenu after quashing the order of detention, the only ground that is being urged by Mr.B.Kumar, learned counsel for the detenu (petitioner herein) is the delay in securing the arrest of the detenu. The order of detention is dated 2.4.1990. The detenu was actually apprehended on 10.12.1990. It is true that if the long delay is left unexplained, it will vitiate the order of detention. In Shafiq Ahmed v. District Magistrate, Meerut and others, A.I.R 1990 S.C. 22 the failure to explainthe delay of three months in securing the arrest of the detenu from the date of passing of the order was taken note of as throwing considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority vitiating the validity of the order of detention. While doing so, the Supreme Court pointed out that there was no supporting affidavit from the officer entrusted with the duty of executing the order of detention. The relevant passage in the above pronouncement runs as follows:

“In the light of the above proposition of law, we shall now examine the first contention which has been raised for the first time before this Court. From the reading of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is seen that the detaining authority has attempted to explain the laxity that has occasioned in passing the impugned order, but miserably failed in explaining the delay of three months in securing the arrest of the detenu from the date of the passing of the order, and keeps stunned silence on that score. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent then queried by this Court whether he could give any reason for this undue delay in arresting the detenu on 18.1.1988 in pursuance of the impugned order of detention made on 7.10.1987, he has frankly admitted that he could not do so - rightly so in our view - in the absence of any explanation in the counter-affidavit. The Superintendent of Police, Malappuram to whom the detention order was forwarded for execution has not filed any supporting affidavit explaining the delay in securing the arrest of the detenu. Under these circumstances, we hold that leaving apart the question of delay in passing the order of detention from the date of the seizure of the gold, the fact remains that the detaining authority has failed to explain the long delay in securing the arrest of the detenu after three months from the date of the passing of the detention order and this non-explanation in our view throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority vitiating the validity of the order of detention.”

2. Keeping in mind the above principle, we are obliged to examine the facts of the present case. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the grievance over this delay has been expressed in paragraphs 6 to 8 thereof and they run as follows:

“I say and submit that the detention order in any event is not sustainable as no effort has been made for arresting or detaining me after the detention order has been passed as early as 2.4.1990. This itself shows that the authorities’ satisfaction that my detention is imminently required is not bona fide. In any event the nexus has long been snapped such that my incarceration at this stage is thoroughly unjustified and punitive in nature.

I did not make myself scarce or absconded In fact, I continued to be a broker of Maruthu Pandiyan Transport Corporation bus until I was arrested and detained in pursuance to the detention on 12.12.1990. It may be seen that the Customs Department prosecuted me by filing a complaint before the Court of learned First Class Judicial Magistrate at Poonamalee. I am not able to say as to when exactly the complaint was filed. However, after the summons was received from the Court I met my counsel in May, 1990 certain applications were filed in the Court and I appeared before