JUDGMENT S.S. Ahmad, J. - The Petitioner, by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the validity of the order dated 21-2-1985 passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act. 2. The order of detention, which is contained in Annexure-1, was executed on 27-.-1986 and the Petitioner was arrested and detained in jail. 3. The Petitioner has raised a number of contentions in the petition but all of them need not be examined as we are satisfied that on account of the delay in the execution of the order impugned in this petition, the Petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed by him. 4. Admittedly the order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur on 21-2-1985. This order was not executed till 27-9-1986. It was for the opposite parties to explain the delay in the execution of the order which they have tried to explain in the counter affidavit as also in the supplementary affidavit filed by them. 5. It is stated in para 8 of the counter affidavit as under: 8. That before asserting further reply to the writ petition, the following facts are necessary to be mentioned. (A) That after passing of the detention order against the Petitioner on 21-2-85, the Petitioner after coming to know of the same avoided its service and absconded. The efforts made were failed and the Petitioner eluded his arrest and avoided service of the order upon him. (B) That it is further stated that the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 2735 of 1985 at Allahabad High Court, challenging the order of detention passed against him under the Act. (C) That in paragraph 21 of the writ petition referred to above made the Petitioner following assertions: That under circumstances, if arrest of the Petitioner u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act are not stayed and the Respondents are restrained from illegally attaching property of the Petitioner, which they are threatening to do, the Petitioner shall be put to great hardship and irreparable loss and injury. (D) That the Petitioner in the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2735 of 1985 obtained interim relief at Allahabad. (E) That on 11-2-1986, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and stay rejected on 11-2-86. (D) That the Petitioner in the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2735 of 1985 obtained interim relief at Allahabad. (E) That on 11-2-1986, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and stay rejected on 11-2-86. (F) That necessary information was received from the Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Allahabad by the Senior Superintendent of Police vide their letter dated 31-7-86. (G) That thereafter necessary steps for arresting the Petitioner on the basis of the detention order already passed against him were taken and the Petitioner in pursuance thereof was arrested on 27-5-86 by the police of Rajghat. The opposite parties have further stated in para 6 of the supplementary counter affidavit as under: 6. That in reply to paras 8-A to 8-G of the rejoinder affidavit, it is stated that the assertion have been made in paras 6 to 14 of the rejoinder affidavit denying the averments made in the counter-affidavit. That in the aforesaid paras of the counter affidavit assertions have been regarding filing of another writ petition by the Petitioner at Allahabad. That since the assertion made in the rejoinder affidavit were contrary to the assertions made in the counter affidavit, further information was sought from the Standing Counsel Office, Allahabad. From the information received, it is revealed that a notice of filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition was given in the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, notice number being 10261/85 on 31-7-85. That duplicate received by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the various opposite parties were sent in August 1985. That the office of the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur and authorities concerned took steps for filing counter affidavit and the same was prepared. 6. The Petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit in which he has stated that Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2735 of 1986 which was filed by him on 11-2-1986 at Allahabad, was summarily dismissed on that very day by Hon'ble K.N. Singh, J. (as then he was) and Hon'ble Ravi Dhaon, J. A copy of the order dismissing the writ petition has been filed as Annexure-5 to the rejoinder affidavit which indicates that the petition was dismissed summarily on the ground that order of detention had not been served upon the Petitioner. It may be stated that the Petitioner, by means of the above writ petition, had prayed that the order of detention may not be executed against him. 7. The averment of the opposite parties that the Petitioner had been avoiding service of the order of detention and that he had absconded, is too general and, we may also observe, vague inasmuch as the details of the steps, if any, which were taken by the opposite parties for executing the impugned order have not been stated. 8. Admittedly the writ petition filed by the Petitioner at Allahabad was dismissed in limine on 11-2-1986 and no interim order was passed in his favour. Moreover, as set out by the Petitioner in para 28 of the petition, the Petitioner was arrested in Crime Case No. 122 of 1986 of P.S. Raj Ghat, Gorakhpur and was in jail from 16-5-1986 to 3-6-1986 under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 but even then the order of detention was not served on the Petitioner. 9. In view of the above, the delay in executing the order which was passed by the District Magistrate on 21-2-1985 and which was executed on 27-9-1986 has not been reasonably explained and what has been set out in the counter affidavit is merely an excuse in not executing the order of detention. The delay, in our opinion, vitiates the order of detention. (See 1986 ALJ 312 , Ghanshyam Bhagat v. State of U.P. Chitranjan Dass Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 2352 , and Sk. Serajul Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 1517 10. We, therefore, allow the petition and quash the order of detention dated 21-2-1985 contained in Annexure-1 and direct that the Petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be detained in connection with some other case. No order as to costs.