Judgment KRISHNA BALLABH SINHA, J. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for releasing the petitioner, who has been detained in pursuance of an order passed by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred under Sub-section (1) (i) &, (iii) of Section 3 of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, (No. 52), 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' (Cofeposa). The impugned order was issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary to the State of Bihar, Department of home [Special], a copy of which is Annexure 1' to the petition. 2. The solitary incident, forming the basis of satisfaction of the detaining authority took place in the mid-night of the 8th November, 1986, when the preventive squad of the Custom Department intercepted a bus of the Bihar Rajya Transport Corporation laden with contraband Nepali ganja near village Jhapaha on Muzaffarpur-Sitamarhi road. The driver of the solid bus bearing registration no.BRQ 3550 made an attempt to dash against the members of the preventive party and escape with the vehicle but he could not succeed. As soon as the bus stopped, the driver abandoned it and melted in the darkness of the night. In course of search 110 bags of contraband nepali ganja, weighing about 2500 kg value at Rs. 10, 50, 000/- were recovered and seized from the bus. Four persons moving in the bus were arrested. 3. An Ambassador car, bearing registration No. BRP 8498, piolating the said bus had managed to escape ignoring the signal given by the preventive squad. After making seizure and arrest, the preventing squad give a hot chase to the car. It was intercepted near the Gandak Bridge at the toll collecting check post. Preventing squad had to open one round of fire to compell the driver of the car to stop the vehicle. On search of the car, 4 bundles of contraband Nepali ganja were recovered from its luggage career. The five occupants of the car including the driver-were arrested and recovered contraband ganja was seized. The arrested persons and seized contraband ganja were brought to the Customs Division Office, Muzaffarpur. Some documents relating to the purchase of the seized Nepali ganja were recovered from one of the occupants of the car. The five occupants of the car including the driver-were arrested and recovered contraband ganja was seized. The arrested persons and seized contraband ganja were brought to the Customs Division Office, Muzaffarpur. Some documents relating to the purchase of the seized Nepali ganja were recovered from one of the occupants of the car. In course of interrogation of the arrested persons it transpired that several other persons were involved in the clandestine deal and petitioner was the owner of the seized Nepali ganja and he was driving the bus. Thereafter a thorough inquiry was made by the Personnel of the Customs Department. In follow up action address of the petitioner was ascertained. It was found that he was driver of the said bus in Bihar Rajya Transport Corporation. He was found absent from his house and official duties. 4. The petitioner was arrested by the police in connection with criminal case and was lodged in Central Jail, Muzaffarpur. He was interrogated by the Custom Department in the jail on the 22nd of April, 1987. He denied his complicity in smuggling of contraband nepali ganja. Pursuant to the detention order (Annexure 1) the petitioner was arrested and the grounds of detention was served on him. He filed a representation which was rejected by the State Government and order of detention was confirmed. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar and the Deputy Secretary to the State Govt. Another counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of India and the officers of the Central Excise, Department of Customs. 6. Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad, learned - counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, first contended that the incident forming the basis of detention of the petitioner had taken place on 6.11.1986 and the order of detention was passed on. 8.6.1988, after lapse of about 19 months and so, there was no nexus between the grounds of detention and the purpose for which the order of detention was passed. It was submitted that the allegation made against the petitioner bad become stale and thus it had no real connection with the order of detention. 7. Mr. M.P. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Customs Department, argued that the points raised on behalf of the petitioner was misconceived and maintable in law. It was submitted that the allegation made against the petitioner bad become stale and thus it had no real connection with the order of detention. 7. Mr. M.P. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Customs Department, argued that the points raised on behalf of the petitioner was misconceived and maintable in law. The delay in passing the detention order from the date of his past activity had been fully explained. The chart (Annexure A), filed with the 'counter-affidavit of Respondent no. 1, would reveal that on 9.11.86 the bus and the car, carrying contraband Nepali ganja was intercepted and seized by the Customs Prevention Squad. Some occupant of the vehicles were interrogated on 10.11.86. A detailed enquiry was conducted and, thereafter, the Assistant Collector, Muzaffarpur wrote to the Assistant Collector, Patna on 17.11.86 to ascertain the name of the owner of the seized car. The Assistant Collector, Patna, sent its report to the Assistant Collector, Muzaffarput on 21.11.86. A search was conducted in the residential premises of Ganga Vishnu Rai. One Baleshwar Singh was interrogated on 27.11.86 and on the same day the Assistant Collector, Muzaffarpur wrote to the Superintendent. Bihar Rajya Bus Depot, Bankipur for communicating the action taken against the petitioner. A report from the Divisional Manager, Bihar Rajya Transport Corporation, Patna was received. From 28.11.86 to 17.2.87 the Excise and Customs Department remained busy in connection with interrogation of several persons and conducting search at different places. After thorough enquiry a proposal to detain the petitioner under COFEPOSA was sent on 20.2.87 to the Government of Bihar by the Assistant Commissioner Excise and Customs Department, The Superintendent (Legal) of the Customs Department informed the Assistant Collector, Muzaffarpur on - 12.3.87 about the observation made by the High Court in connection with the case. The Assistant Collector 'Cofeposa' asked for some more information from the Assistant Collector, Excise and customs Department, Muzaffarpur on 20.3.1987. Some clarifications were also sought by the State Government. Further report was called for by the Assistant Collector, Cofeposa from the Assistant Collector, Customs, Muzaffarpur. The later submitted his report on 8.4.87. The Under Secretary to the Government of Bihar wrote to the Collector, Cofeposa on 13.4.87 to give some relevant information. The petitioner was interrogated in jail from 22.4.87 to 24.4.87 by the Customs authority. Again on 30.6.87 the Assistant Collector, Cofeposa, asked for some information from the Assistant Collector, Muzaffarpur. The later submitted his report on 8.4.87. The Under Secretary to the Government of Bihar wrote to the Collector, Cofeposa on 13.4.87 to give some relevant information. The petitioner was interrogated in jail from 22.4.87 to 24.4.87 by the Customs authority. Again on 30.6.87 the Assistant Collector, Cofeposa, asked for some information from the Assistant Collector, Muzaffarpur. A letter was sent by the Assistant Collector, Muzaffarpur to the Assistant Collector, Cofeposa, for order of detention of Naresh Yadav and Nandu Yadav, which was received in the Divisional Office on 2.7.87. On 16.11.87 a proposal was made by the Customs Department to the Secretary, Government of Bihar, for detention of the petitioner under Cofeposa. Prior to that a lot of correspondences were made between the Assistant Collector, Customs, Muzaffarpur, Assistant Collector, Cofeposa and the State of Bihar in regard to the persons who were arrested on 9.11.86 from the vehicles in which Nepali contraband ganja was being carried. The chart (Annexure-A) shows, the date-wise steps taken by the Customs Department in order to verify the allegation made against the petitioner. It also took some time to ascertain the correct address of the arrested persons. 8. On perusal of Annexure-A it is manifest that detailed reasonable explanation has been given in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents, Union of India, explaining almost each day delay. As mentioned above, as many as 9 persons were apprehended on 9.11.86 when the bus and the car were intercepted. In course of enquiry other persons were also suspected and the Excise and Customs Department also conducted investigation regarding their involvement in the case. The name of the petitioner came to light in course of interrogation of the arrested persons and 'thereafter further enquiry was conducted by the Department of Customs. Before taking any step, the Customs Department entered into correspondence with the authority of the Bihar Rajya Transport Corporation. The petitioner could be available for interrogation only in the last week of April, 1987 where he was ledged in Central Jail, Muzaffarpur in connection with a criminal case. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placed reliance on the case of Harnek Singh V. State of Punjab, 1982 B.B.C.J. (SC) 93. in support of his argument that the ground was stale and had no proximate link between the ground and avowed purpose. That case is distinguishable on facts. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placed reliance on the case of Harnek Singh V. State of Punjab, 1982 B.B.C.J. (SC) 93. in support of his argument that the ground was stale and had no proximate link between the ground and avowed purpose. That case is distinguishable on facts. In that case absolutely no explanation was furnished on behalf of the State as to why action was not taken earlier whereas, in the instant case Annexure-A gives a complete answer to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. 10. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it appears that proposal for detention of the petitioner was sent to the State Government by the Customs Department on 18.11.87, as the petitioner was found absconding from his house as well as from the duties. After the proposal wall examined by the State Government at various stages including the law Department, the Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department, put up a proposal to the Additional Secretary, Home (Special) on 15.11.88 for obtaining the. orders of the Chief Minister. The relevant record was submitted to the Home Secretary on 16.11.88, who endorsed the same to the Chief Minister on 18-1-88. As mentioned in the Counter affidavit of the State, the 17 January, 1988 was Sunday. The Chief Minister passed order on 21-1-88. On enquiry from the State Government, a report was submitted by the Customs Department on 5-5-88 that the petitioner had been released on bail. Thereafter the order of detention was issued against the petitioner on 8.6.88. Submission was made that a large number of persons were involved in the incident, which was the foundation of the order of detention and it was necessary to make enquiry on different line at different level and it took considerable time to put up proposal for detention under the Cofeposa. The petitioner escaped from the bus in question in the darkness of night, so it took further time to ascertain his address and involvement in the incident. After verification of his address, he was found absconding from his house and absenting from his duties. When it came to the knowledge of the Customs Department that he was involved in a criminal case, the petitioner was interrogated and thereafter further enquiry was made. 11. After verification of his address, he was found absconding from his house and absenting from his duties. When it came to the knowledge of the Customs Department that he was involved in a criminal case, the petitioner was interrogated and thereafter further enquiry was made. 11. On the facts and circumstances mentioned above, in my concluded opinion, reasonable explanation has been put forward by the Department to explain the delay caused in taking any action under the Cofeposa from the date of the incident. So, I do not find any substance in the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner. 12. The other contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the detaining authority was not aware that the petitioner was arrested in connection with a criminal case and was released on bail. Unawareness about the release of the petitioner from jail clearly revealed non-application of mind by the detaining authority and so the order was bad in law. Reliance was placed on the case of Anant Sakharam Raut V. State of Maharastra (A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 187). It was argued in that case before the Supreme Court that the detaining authority was not made aware at the time when the detention order was passed that the detenue had moved application for bail in three pending cases and he was enlarged on bail on different dates in those cases. As the order under challenge was silent on that point, so it was observed by the Supreme Court that the same indicated a total absence of application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. 13. In the instant case, as mentioned above, a query was made by the State Government from the Customs Department and in response to the same a report was received on 5.5.88 that the petitioner had been released on bail, After receipt of the said report the detention order "as passed on 8.5.88. Thus, it would appear that the detaining authority was fully aware of the fact that the petitioner was taken into custody in connection with a criminal case and thereafter bail was granted to him, So the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner does not merit any consideration. 14. Thus, it would appear that the detaining authority was fully aware of the fact that the petitioner was taken into custody in connection with a criminal case and thereafter bail was granted to him, So the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner does not merit any consideration. 14. One of the contentions strongly pressed of behalf of the petitioner was that there was inordinate delay in disposal of his representation and on that ground alone the order of detention was fit to be set aside. In support of the contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the cases of Sardar Kashmir Singh V. Union of India and other), [1982 S.C.C. (Cr.) 108], Raj Kishore Prasad V. State of Bihar and others (A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 320), D.N, Goswami V. State of West Bengal (A.I.R. 1973 SC 757). Mohinuddin Vs. District Magistrate, Beed & ors. (A.I.R. 1987 SC 1971) and Sudhir Kumar V. State of Bihar mid others (1983 B.B.C.J.) 59. 15. As regard Sardar Kashmir Singh (Supra) case, the detenue was arrested under the provision of the Cofeposa on the 10th June, 1979 and the grounds of detention was served on the same date. He asked for copies of some documents relied upon by the detenning authority in passing the order of detention on the 4th June, 1979. The copies were supplied to him on the 17th July, 1979. Prior to that he bad filed an incomplete representation on the 29th June, 1979. The detaining authority took 22 days in rejecting the representation. The delay of 22 days having not been explained properly, the order of detention was set aside by the Supreme Court. So, it is a case in which no satisfactory explanation was offered for the inordinate delay caused in rejecting the representation. In Raj Kishore Prasad. (Supra) case the representation was made on the 19th October, 1981 and it was rejected on the 16th November 1981. on the same day when the report of the Advisory Board was received. A copy of the representation was sent to the District Magistrate in the 20th October, 1981 and he sent his comment on the 31st October, 1981. The District Magistrate took more than 9 days in examining the representation and forwarding his comment for which there was no explanation. In that back ground the order of detention passed under the National Security Act, 1965 (Sic) 17. The District Magistrate took more than 9 days in examining the representation and forwarding his comment for which there was no explanation. In that back ground the order of detention passed under the National Security Act, 1965 (Sic) 17. In the case of Devendra Nath Goswami (supra), the order of detention was passed under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The representation of the detenue was received by the State Govt. on the 22nd January, 1972 and it was considered by it on the 15th February, 1972. In that case the delay was, sought to be explained by making statement in the counter affidavit that due to sudden and abrupt increase in the number of detention under the said Act, there was great pressure of work on the Department of Home (Special) and in consequence whereof consideration of the cases was a little delayed. The explanation of delay of 25 days was not found to be satisfactory by the Supreme Court and thus tile order of detention was set aside. 18. In Mohinuddin case (Supra) there were two representations made by the detenue, one addressed to the Chief Minister dated the 22nd September, 1986 and the other to the Advisory Board dated the 6th October, 1985. The Chief Minister looked into the representation on the 17th November, 1986. On behalf of the State it was stated in the counter affidavit that the Chief Minister was pre-occupied in connection with very important matter of the State which involved tours as well as meetings outside the State so it resulted in some delay in disposing of several cases submitted to the Chief Minister including the case of that detenue, It was observed by the Supreme Court that there being failure on the part of the State Government to consider the representation made by the detenue addressed to the Chief Minister, his continued detention was invalid. 19. In the case of Sudhir Kumar (supra) the detention order was passed under Bihar Control of Crime Act, 1981. A representation was filed by the detenue on 25.4.82 and it was finally disposed of on 26.5.82 when the order of detention was confirmed by the State Government. 19. In the case of Sudhir Kumar (supra) the detention order was passed under Bihar Control of Crime Act, 1981. A representation was filed by the detenue on 25.4.82 and it was finally disposed of on 26.5.82 when the order of detention was confirmed by the State Government. From the facts of the said case, as mentioned in the judgment, it appears that it was not stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the representation of the petitioner was considered by the State Govt. It was held by a Bench of this Court that non-consideration or an unreasonable belated consideration of the representation would tantamount to non-compliance of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. Thus, it would appear that practically no explanation was offered for the delay of one month in consideration of the representation filed by the detenue. 20. It hardly needs to be stated that the cases relied upon on behalf of the petitioner are clearly distinguishable on facts. In some of those cases no explanation was given for the delay caused in consideration of the representation filed by the detenue. In other cases the explanation offered to explain the delay was not found acceptable. Thus, those cases are of no aid to the petitioner. 21. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that the contention in regard to delay, caused in disposal of the representation of the petitioner, was not tenable; inasmuch as, it was fully explained by the statement made in the counter affidavit. It was urged that on the facts and circumstances, as mentioned in the counter affidavit, it would be wrong to say that there as undue delay in consideration of the representation of the petitioner and the ground had become stale. The factual aspect of the case, as disclosed in the counter affidavit, has already been dealt in the foregoing paragraphs. As regards the legal aspect, reliance was placed heavily on behalf of the respondents on the case of Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of Gujrat (A.I.R. 1988 Supreme Court 1255). 22. In Rajendra Kumar case (supra) upon receipt of prior information that the appellant was about to import Indian made Foreign Liquor, the Gujrat Police blocked the road near a bridge in the night between the 29th and 30th December, 1986. The signal given by the Police failed to stop the vehicle. State of Gujrat (A.I.R. 1988 Supreme Court 1255). 22. In Rajendra Kumar case (supra) upon receipt of prior information that the appellant was about to import Indian made Foreign Liquor, the Gujrat Police blocked the road near a bridge in the night between the 29th and 30th December, 1986. The signal given by the Police failed to stop the vehicle. After hot case, the Police was able to intercept the vehicle. On search it was found laden with 77 sealed cases containing 2040 bottles of different brands of scotch, whisky, beer etc. From the statement of the driver and cleaner it transpired that the petitioner of that case was the person who had purchased the liquor from the wine merchants of Vanswada. The statements of the witnesses were recorded on the 4th of January, 1987. The order of detention was passed on the 28th of May, 1987, i.e., after lapse of five months. The petitioner was taken into custody on the 30th May, 1987 and the ground of detention was served on him on the same day. An argument was advanced before the Supreme Court that no explanation was furnished for the admitted delay of 5 months in making the order of detention. It was further argued that there was nothing to show that there was awareness of the fact that the appellant bad applied for anticipatory bail and there was nothing to show that the detaining authority was satisfied about the compelling necessity to make the order of detention. Further it was urged that there was delay in disposal of the representation made by the appellant to the State Government which rendered his detention invalid. Having considered the points raised on behalf of the petitioner and the existing condition, it has been observed thus:- "In the enforcement of a law relating to preventive detention like the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, there is apt to be some delay, between the prejudicial activities complained of under section 3 (1) of the Act, and the making of an order of detention. When a person is detected in the Act, of smuggling or foreign exchange racketeering the Directorate of Enforcement has to make a thorough investigation into all the facts with a view to determine the identity of the persons engaged in these operations which have a deleterious effect on the national economy. When a person is detected in the Act, of smuggling or foreign exchange racketeering the Directorate of Enforcement has to make a thorough investigation into all the facts with a view to determine the identity of the persons engaged in these operations which have a deleterious effect on the national economy. Quite often these activities are carried on by persons forming a syndicate or having a wide network and therefore this includes recording of statements of persons involved, examination of their books of accounts and other related documents. Effective administration and realisation of the purposes of the clandestine manner in which the persons engaged in such operations carry on their activities and the consequent difficulties in securing sufficient evidence to comply with the rigid standards; insisted upon by the Courts. Sometimes such investigation has to the carried on for months together due to the magnitude of the operations. Apart from taking various other measures i.e. launching of prosecution of the persons involved for contravention of the various provisions of the Acts in question and initiation of the adjudication proceedings, the Directorate has also to consider whether there was necessity in the public interest to direct the detention of such person or persons under S.3 (1) acting in any manlier prejudicial to the conservation and augmentation of foreign exchange or with a view to preventing them from engaging in smuggling of goods etc. The proposal bas to be cleared at the highest quarter and is then placed before a screening Committee. For ought we know the Screening Committee may meet once or twice a month. If the Screening Committee approves, of the proposal, it would place the same before the detaining authority. The proposal bas to be cleared at the highest quarter and is then placed before a screening Committee. For ought we know the Screening Committee may meet once or twice a month. If the Screening Committee approves, of the proposal, it would place the same before the detaining authority. Being conscious that the requirements of Art. 22 (5) would not be satisfied unless the basic facts and materials which weighed with him in reaching his subjective satisfaction are communicated to the detenue and the likelihood that the Court would examine the grounds specified in the order of detention to see whether they were relevant to the circumstances under which the impugned order was passed, the detaining authority would necessarily insist upon sufficiency of the grounds which would justify the taking of the drastic measure of preventively detaining the person." It has been further observed :- "Viewed from this perspective, we wish to emphasise and make it clear for the guidance of the different High Courts that a distinction must be drawn between the delay in making of an order of detention under a law relating to preventive detention like the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 and the delay in complying with the procedural safegurds of Art.22 (5) of the Constitution. It has been laid down by this Court in a series of decisions that the rule as to unexplained delay in taking action is not inflexible. Qutite obviously, in cases of mere delay in making of an order of detention under a law like the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 enacted for the purpose of dealing effectively with persons engaged in smuggling and foreign exchange racketeering who, owing to their large resources and influence have been posing a serious threat to the economy and thereby to the security of the nation, the Courts should not merely on account of delay in making of an order of detention assume that such delay, if not satisfactorily explained, must necessarily give rise to an inference that there was no sufficient material for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority or that such subjective satisfaction was not genuinely reached. Taking of such a view would not be warranted unless illusory or that there is no real nexus between the grounds and impugned order of detention. Taking of such a view would not be warranted unless illusory or that there is no real nexus between the grounds and impugned order of detention. The decisions to the contrary by the Delhi High Court dated 2.2.1987 (reported in 1987 Cr. L.J. 1632), Bhupinder Singh Vs. Union of India (1985) 28 Delhi L.T. 493, Anwar Esmail Aibani Vs. Union of India (Cr. W. No. 375/86 dated 11.12.86) reported in (1987) 3 LJ Rep. 383, Surinder Pal Singh Vs. M.L. Wadhawan (Crl. W. No. 444/86) dated 9.3.1987 (2) Crimes 449) and Ramesh Lal V-Delhi Administration (Crl. W. No. 43/84 dated 16.4.84) and other cases taking the same view do not lay down good law and are accordingly overruled." 23. Regard being had to the relevant dates of that case, as mentioned above, it has been held :- "Even though there was no explanation for the delay between 2nd February and 28th May, 1987 it could not give rise to a legitimate inference that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the District Magistrate was not genuine or that the grounds were stale or illusory or that there was no rational connection between the grounds and the impugned order of detention...... " 24. In my view, this case aptly answers all the questions raised on behalf of, the petitioner. It has been held that the explanation offered by the respondents for delay at the initial stage in making the order of detention as well as the delay caused in consideration of the representation filed by the petitioner has been reasonably and properly explained. 25. In view of the foregoing discussions. I do not find any merit in the application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. HP. Application dismissed