JUDGMENT - DHABE H.W., J.:—The petitioner who is the friend of the detenu Shri Vakaith Aboo Davood, r/o Mattathur Via Kollakkal, District Mallapuram. Kerala (hereinafter referred to as "detenu") has challenged the order of the detention dated 23-7-1985 passed under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, "COFEPOSA Act"). It is not necessary to state the facts in detail in the instant writ petition because the impugned order of detention is liable to be struck down on the short ground that there is an inordinate delay in serving the order of detention upon the detenu and in securing his arrest in the instant case. Suffice it to state that on 29-5-1985 when the detenu came by the Air India Flight from Jeddah to Bombay his package was searched in the presence of the Panchas and his red suitcase was searched with the metal detector it was found that there was a false top in the said suitcase in which after opening the same 13 gold bullions of 10 tolas each bearing foreign markings, one gold bullion of 50 grams also bearing foreign markings, and 13 gold coins (sovereigns) were found concealed. Suspecting that it was contraband gold smuggled into India the detenu was arrested under section 104 of the Customs Act on 29-5-1985. His statement was also recorded under the Customs Act on same date. He was, however, released on bail in the amount of Rs. 80,000/- by the Additional Metropolitian Magistrate on 8-7-1985. The Detaining Authority, after considering the material brought to its notice by the Sponsoring Authority, formulated the grounds of detention on 23-7-1985 and also passed the order of detention on the same date. However, the said order of detention was served upon the detenu on 27-3-1989 i.e. after a period of about 4 years when the detenu surrendered before the Senior Inspector, P.C.B., C.I.D., Bombay and submitted to him a medical certificate dated 26-1-1989 from Dr. K. Sundaram, Medical Officer, Government Ayurvedic Mental Hospital, Kottakkal in which it was stated that the detenu was under his treatment from 25-7-1986 to 20-1-1989 for the disease 'Sanavasthitha Chitthathwa'. The detenu was directed to be detained for one week in Bombay and thereafter in Nagpur by the order passed on 23-7-1985. He is thus detained in Nagpur jail. K. Sundaram, Medical Officer, Government Ayurvedic Mental Hospital, Kottakkal in which it was stated that the detenu was under his treatment from 25-7-1986 to 20-1-1989 for the disease 'Sanavasthitha Chitthathwa'. The detenu was directed to be detained for one week in Bombay and thereafter in Nagpur by the order passed on 23-7-1985. He is thus detained in Nagpur jail. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the friend of the detenu has filed the instant writ petition in this Court. 2. As regards the question of delay in serving the order of detention and securing the arrest of the detenu what has to be seen as per the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala and others)1, J.T. 1989(3) S.C. 444 is that when there is unsatisfactory and unexplained delay between the date of the order of detention and the date of securing the arrest of the detenu, such a delay would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the objective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority leading to legitimate inference that the Detaining Authority was not really and genuinely satisfied as regards the necessity for Detaining the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner. The Supreme Court has also observed in the above case that the question whether the prejudicial activities of a person neccessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and no hard and fast Rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf. However, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and passing of the order of detention or in securing the arrest of the detenu, the Court has to examine whether the Detaining Authority has given a tenable and reasonable explanation for such inordinate delay and also whether by reason of such delay the casual connection between the prejudical activities and the order of detention is snapped. 3. 3. Perusal of para 12 of the judgment of the Supreme Court, cited supra, would show that there was about three months delay in serving the order of detention and securing arrest of the detenu in the said case. In para 13 of the above judgment the Supreme Court held 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 order of detention and the said non-explanation would in their view throw a considerable doubt upon the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority vitiating the order of detention in that case. 4. It is thus necessary to consider in the instant case the question of delay in serving the order of detention and securing the arrest of the detenu in the light of the above judgment of the Supreme Court. As regards the explanation about the delay in serving the order of detention upon the detenu the respondents have filed an affidavit of one Shri S.B. Chowdhari, Inspector, Customs, COFEPOSA Cell (Preventive), Bombay. He has stated in his affidavit that the efforts were made to serve the order of detention upon the detenu on the remand dates in the case against him under the Customs Act which was fixed on 27-9-1985, 5-11-1985, 9-1-1986, 21-3-1986 and 2-6-1986. However, according to the said affidavit, since the detenu did not attend the Court on the said dates the order of detention could not be served upon him. It is further stated in the said affidavit, since the detenu did not attend the Court on the said dates the order of detention could not be served upon him. It is further stated in the said affidavit that since the Department had no local address of the detenu the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime). Greater Bombay, was requested on 29th July, 1985 to contact his counterpart in Kerala with a request to trace the detenu. The Collector of Customs, Cochin was also requested on 31-7-1985 to depute one of his Field Officer to make discreet enquiries regarding the whereabouts of the detenu. Further on 9-9-1985 the Additional Collector of Customs, Cochin, was requested to communicate the designation and address of the Local Officer to whom the Customs Officer and the Police of Bombay could be directed to approach. Further on 9-9-1985 the Additional Collector of Customs, Cochin, was requested to communicate the designation and address of the Local Officer to whom the Customs Officer and the Police of Bombay could be directed to approach. The Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime), Greater Bombay, intimated the Detaining Authority by his letter dated 12-9-1986 that inspite of all efforts the detenu remained untraced. It is then stated in the said affidavit that the detenu surrendered to P.C.B., C.I.D., Bombay on 27-3-1989 and on the day the order of detention came to be served on him. 5. It may be seen that on the face of it there is no reasonable and satisfactory explanation about the delay contained in the affidavit of the said Shri S.B. Chowdhari. It is material to see that although the local address of the detenu was not available with the Department and the Detaining Authority his residential address in Kerala, which is even referred to in the order of detention was known to the Department as well as the Detaining Authority. The affidavit of Shri. S.B. Chowdhari does not disclose what enquiries were made by the Police Officers or the Customs Authorities with regard to his address in Kerala. In fact to explain such an inordinate delay supporting affidavit either of the Officer of the Customs Department concerned in the State of Kerala to whom enquiry was entrusted and/or the affidavit of the Police Officer to whom the enquiry was entrusted in Kerala ought to have been filed in the instant case. No such supporting affidavit is filed to show what enquiries these officers made in Kerala. 6. It may be seen that the Medical Certificate filed by the detenu shows that he was taking treatment in hospital from 25-7-1986 to 20-1-1989. It is, therefore, clear that if his medical certificate was genuine and his residential address was also genuine he would have been at his residence prior to 25-7-1986 which the Kerala Officers would have known particularly when the matter was entrusted to them earlier in July, 1985. Further, it may be seen that if on so may dates referred to in the affidavit of Shri Chowdhari the detenu did not appear in the Court it is not shown as to why steps were not taken either for issuing warrant of his arrest and/or for cancellation of his bail. Further, it may be seen that if on so may dates referred to in the affidavit of Shri Chowdhari the detenu did not appear in the Court it is not shown as to why steps were not taken either for issuing warrant of his arrest and/or for cancellation of his bail. Even when the Additional Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, intimated the Department by his letter dated 12-9-1986 that inspite of all efforts the detenu remained untraced, no steps were still thereafter taken to secure the presence of the detenu by issuing warrant of his arrest and by applying for cancellation of his bail. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondents has tried to urge before us that the Medical Certificate produced by the detenu was false. However, there is no foundation for his aforesaid submission. As already pointed out, no steps were taken by the Department to prove in the Court that the medical be cancelled. Moreover, Dr. K. Sundaran, who issued the said certificate, was a Medical Officer in the Government Hospital as it is clear from the medical certificate issued by him itself. Therefore, if according to the respondents the said certificate was false, proper enquiries could have been made in the said hospital to determine whether the said certificate was true or not and also further to determine whether the detenu was under the treatment of the said Dr. K. Sundaran from 25-7-1986 to 20-1-1989 or not. In the absence of such steps being shown to be taken by the Department or the respondents it cannot be held that the said medical certificate was false. 8. It is thus clear that these is no reasonable and satisfactory explanation given by the respondents for such an inordinate delay in serving the order of detention upon the detenu and in securing his arrest in this case. In fact the delay is so inordinate and long between the date of the incident and the date of service of the order of detention that it will have to be presumed that the live-link between the prejudicial activities of the detenu and the purpose of his detention is snapped. As held by the Supreme Court in T.M. Rahman's case supra, am inordinate and unexplained delay would throw a considerable doubt upon the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority vitiating the order of detention itself. As held by the Supreme Court in T.M. Rahman's case supra, am inordinate and unexplained delay would throw a considerable doubt upon the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority vitiating the order of detention itself. The impugned order of detention of the detenu in the instant case, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 9. In the result, the instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 23-7-1985 is set aside and it is directed that the detenu Vakaith Aboo Davood be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not otherwise required to be obtained for any other offence in any other matter. Petition allowed. -----