O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)

The detenu, R. Bhaskaran, aged about 56 years, is the petitioner herein. He has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 1st respondent dated 31.08.2023, branding him as "COFEPOSA offender", under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 and the learned Senior Panel Counsel, Govt. of India, appearing the 2nd respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner advanced his arguments on the grounds of i. delay in passing the order of detention;

ii. delay in considering the representation of the detenu, dated

14.09.2023; and iii. non placement of show cause notice issued to the detenu on

02.08.2023 before the Detaining Authority.

4. In the instant case, admittedly, the detenu was arrested on

07.01.2023 and the detention order came to be passed by the 1st respondent herein only on 31.08.2023, in between which there is a delay of almost eight months. The 1st respondent in his counter affidavit has attempted to explain this delay in the following manner:

"(viii) It is also humbly submitted that the proposal for detention of Thiru R. Bhaskaran was received from the Sponsoring Authority on 01.06.2023. It was meticulously examined by the Detaining Authority. During such examination of the matter, the Detaining Authority called for further information / evidence / development of the case and documents from the Sponsoring Authority in six instances on 10.06.2023, 19.06.2023, 27.06.2023, 11.07.2023, 18.07.2023 and 07.08.2023 and scrutinized all the documents with due care. After satisfying that there are valid grounds for detention of the detenu, the detention order was passed against him on 31.08.2023. Hence, the allegation made in paragraph 5(i) of the Affidavit that there was an inordinate and unreasonable delay of nearly 8 months in passing the detaining order, is devoid of merit.

The aforesaid extract is self explanatory. We are not satisfied with the aforesaid explanation attempted to be given for this inordinate delay of almost eight months, more particularly, when it is stated that the documents from the Sponsoring Authority was scrutinized on six occasions between 10.06.2023 and 07.08.2023, without explaining as to why it took almost two months for such scrutiny. This apart, between 07.08.2023 and 31.08.2023, there is absolutely no explanation for the delay in passing the detention order.

4.1. In a similar case, where there was a delay in passing the detention order on 18.06.2022 after the arrest of the detenu on 08.04.2022, this Court in HCP No.1388 of 2022 [Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332], held as follows:

“6.... As between 08.04.2022 and 18.06.2022, it is well over two months and given the facts and circumstances of the instant case, particularly ground and the adverse cases, we find that this live and proximate link between grounds and purpose of detention had in fact snapped.”

This Court, in the said order, drew inspiration from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813, though in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not directly deal with the issue of delay in passing the detention order after the arrest of the detenu. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are extracted hereunder:-

“20. It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of the above decisions of this Court, that the underlying principle is that if there is unreasonable delay between the date of the order of detention & actual arrest of the detenu and in the same manner from the date of the proposal and passing of the order of detention, such delay unless satisfactorily explained throws a considerable doubt on the g