Jagdish Chandra, J. ( 1 ) -ORDER of detention was passed on 6th September, 1985 by the Central Government in regard to the petitioner Balbir Singh son of Late Shri Mehar Singh resident of 31/6 Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, winder Section 3 (1) of the Coniervation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA) Act, 1974 (as amended) inasmuch as the Central Government was satisfied with respect to the petitioner that the passing of this detention order was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the grounds of detention information was received by the Headquarters Office of the Enforcement Directorate that one Niranjan Singh who has a house at 31/6, Pusa Road, New Delhi and having telephone No. 586734 was indulging in smuggling of currency. Thil information was forwarded to the Delhi Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directoiate on 14th December, 1983 on the basis of which the aforesaid premises of Niranjan Singh situated at 31/6 Old Rajinder Nagar. New Delhi, was searched by the officers of Delhi Zonal Office of Enforcement Department on 10th January, 1984 which resulted in the seizure of Foreign Exchange viz. U. S. Dollars 84, Singapore Dollars 729, Hong Kong Dollars 110 and Indian Currency of Rs. 54,000. 00 and some documents. During the course of the aforesaid search the petitioner Balbir Singh entered the said premises and his personal search together with the search of his scooter No. DHQ 6553 (two wheeler) was also conducted by the said officers of the Directoiate of Enforcement. As a result of the personal search of Balbir Singh petitioner it transpired that his baggage was also lying in the said premises and the same was also subjected to search. As a result of those searches Indian Currency of Rs. 2. 300. 00 as also certain incriminating documents were recovered and were seized under a Panchnama dated 10th January. 1984. ( 3 ) THE statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate, Delhi Zonal Office, under Section 40 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on that very day i e. 10th January, 1984 wherein the petitioner disclosed that he along with one Gyassuddin was working as paid employees of Nranja Singh who was having a. cloth shop in Singapore by the name of Jessal Bros. and that both oft them were receiving a salary of Rs. l,000. 00 per month from Niranjan Singh and that their job was to purchase foreign goods which ware being brought in by incoming passengera and to make them paymente at the rate Rs. . 9. 00 to Rs 9. . 25 per Singapore Dollar under the instructions from Niranjan Singh of Singapore. The petitioner further admitted before those officers that he had earned a sum ofrs. l,50,000. 00 by way of profits on such purchases and subsequent sales of those goods during the period from June 1983 to October, November 1983 -. and that the,. profit so earned was further invested in this business. ( 4 ) THE petitioner was arreited on 10th January, 1994- under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Act, 1973 but released by the enforcement officers on his furnishing a personal bend of Rs. 20,000. 00 on 11th January. 1984. The aforesaid confessional statement was retracted by the petitioner vide telegram dated 13th January, 1984 by starting that the aforesaid confessional statement was recorded under coercion and threat. ( 5 ) THE petitioner s statement was again recorded on 17th January, 1984 wherein he admitted the correctness of his initial statement dated 10th January. 1984. The petitioner, however, again retracted his aforesaid stateamnt dated 17th January,1984 through a letter-dated 24th January 1984- stenting that his statement dated 17th. January, 1984 had been. recorded under inducement and threat. He was then taken into custody on 26th December, 1984 by the enforcement officers. He was produced before the Magistrate on 29th December, 1984 on which date the complaint against him was filed and the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. He Was granted bail on 22nd January, 1985 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He was ultimately ordered to be detained on 6th September, 1985. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed this writ petition only on one simple ground i. e. the ground of delay. He has contended that when the complaint was filed against the petitioner in the court of the learned Magistrate on 29th December. 1984 there was entire material with the Directorate of Enforcement against the petitioner and nothing more came to be added thereto whereas the order of detention against the petitioner was passed as late as 6th September. He has contended that when the complaint was filed against the petitioner in the court of the learned Magistrate on 29th December. 1984 there was entire material with the Directorate of Enforcement against the petitioner and nothing more came to be added thereto whereas the order of detention against the petitioner was passed as late as 6th September. 1985 and that there was hardly any explanation presented by the department concerned for this delay for which reason it could be said that there was hardly any nexus between the ground of detention and the alleged recovery effected from the petitioner on 10th January, 1984 when he was arrested. He has further contended that the order of detention appears to have been passed against the petitioner simply for the reason of his having retracted the two confessional statements made by him, which factor appears to have annoyed the officers of the enforcement department. Para II of the writ petition talks of this delay and the malafides on the part of the officers of the enforcement department. The corresponding para No. 11 of the counter-affidavit of the respondents is a reply to the averments in para No. 11 of the petition and in para No. 11 of this counter-affidavit the respondents have tried to explain the delay only uptil February 1985 leaving Unheeded the remaining delay since February 1985 uptil 6th September 1915 which is the date of the detention order in question and thus the delay of about seven and half months remains unexplained in this counter-affidavit However, at this stage Mr Khurana learned counsel for the respondents wants to disclose from the official record certain dates showing the processing of this case pertaining to the petitioner since Feb. 1985 uptil June 1985. Nothing beyond the mounter-affidavit is permissible to be shown unless the same finds mention in the counter-affidavit by way of pleadings. If the counter-affidavit had sought to explain the delay uptil June 1985 the court in order to be doubly sure besides on the basis of the counter-affidavit could take notice of the official record as now Sought to be shown by the learned counsel for the repandents. But in the absence of the pleadings in the counter affidavit the same cannot be seen beyond February 1985 upto which month the counter-affidavit seeks to explain the delay. But in the absence of the pleadings in the counter affidavit the same cannot be seen beyond February 1985 upto which month the counter-affidavit seeks to explain the delay. Even otherwise the official record tries to explain the delay upto June 1985 and thereafter the delay uptil 6th September, 1985 which the date of the` order of detention in question admittedly remains unexplanted. If the object of the detention order is the prevention of prejudicial activities, it has necessarily to be prompt and immediate and the intervening delay, if any, has got to be explained by the Central Government in a satisfactory manner and without the same the delay in passing the detention order is fatal Reference in this connection may be made to Sk. Abdul Mannafv. The State of W B, AIR 1974 S. C. 2066 where in habeas corpus petition detention order under Maintenance of internal Security Act, 1971 was quashed for the reason of the unexplained delay of nine months between the order of detention and the alleged prejudicial activities.-Lakshman Khatik v. The Stale of West Bengal. AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1264 is another authority very opposite on the point in hand. It deals with the detention order passed under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (1971) and the detention order had been passed with a view to prevent disruption of supplies of food-grains. Delay was there in passing the detention. order and on the point of delay it was held as follows :- "that in the absence of any explanation regarding the delay, the order of detention, passed with a view to prevent disruption of supplies of foodgrains on the grounds based on incidents of removal of rice which took place about seven months earlier, was invalid. " ( 7 ) NO other point is urged and in view of what has been found above, the detention order in question pertaining to the petitioner Balbir Singh is vitiated on account of delay and consequently accepting this petition, rule (actual) issued on 16th May, 1986 is made absolute and the petitioner shall be set at liberty by the respondents forthwith unless he is required in some other case. No order as to costs.