JUDGMENT

1. Delhi Administration which has passed the detention order has filed reply by way of counter affidavit, though Union of India has not filed the reply. The Union of India is served, however despite two opportunities, no reply is filed by Union of India. No one appears for Union of India either.

Rule D.B.

2. Since a very short point is involved and the Delhi Administration which is the main contesting party has filed the reply, we proceed to hear the writ petition.

3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filled challenging the order of detention dated 18.1.1991 passed by the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi under Section 3(1) read with Section 2 (f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 mainly on the ground that there is long delay between the alleged incident and the impugned detention order. The incident took place on 6th April 1990 and the detention order was passed on 18th January 1991. In the reply filed to the petition by the Delhi Administration, it is not disputed by respondent Delhi Administration that the incident took place on 6th April 1990. The only reason given for the delay is that the matter was placed before the Deputy Secretary (Home) on 26th December 1990. The Lt. Governor considered the case and passed the order on 11th January 1991 and thereafter the detention order was passed on 18th January 1991. It is submitted that the detention was initiated only after the petitioner was released on bail on 6th June 1990.

4. We find that the explanation given by the respondent Delhi Administration is far from satisfactory. In fact, there is no explanation for the delay from 6th June 1990 to 27th December 1990. Moreover, even after the detention order was passed it was not executed for more than 20 days fill 8th February 1991. It has been authoritatively held that it is the obligation of the State or the detaining authority in making its return to the rule in such a case to place all the relevant facts before the court and if there is any delay in making the order of detention or in arresting the detenu, which is prima facie unexplained the State must give reasons explaining the delay. Reference may be made to S.K. Serajul vs. State of West Bengal, (1975) 2 SCC 78 in that regard. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of explanation for the delay it is difficult to accept that the detaining authority applied its mind before passing the order. In the present case also, delay at both stages i.e. in passing the detention order and execution of the order in unexplained. The condition precedent for the making of the order was therefore not satisfied.

5. In the circumstances, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The Rule is made absolute. The order of detention dated 18.1.1991 is quashed. The petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.