V. B. Bansal ( 1 ) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Produre has been filed by Brij Mohan Sethi, the petitioner, pravine that the order dated 19th October, 1989 for his detention be quashed. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to the Act) Shri Mahendra Prasad specially empowered officer passed the impugned order dated 19th October, 1989 for the detention of the petitioner, Shri Brij Mohan Sethi, so as to prevent him from dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. ( 2 ) IN this petition a number of grounds have been taken by the petitioner whereby challenging the order of his detention. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, has restricted his submission only on one point i. e. the delay in execution of the order of detention. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order was passed on 19th October. 1989 but it was executed only on 29th March, 1990 inspite of the fact that the petitioner was available at the given address. He has also submitted that no serious efforts were made by the respondent for serving order of detention upon him and it was only when the petitioner appeared in the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on 29th March, 1990 that this order was served. He has, thus, submitted that apparently there was no immediate necessity of passing the impugned order and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority stands vitiated on account on this inordinate delay. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has, however, submitted that efforts were made for getting the detention order served upon the petitioner for which even non-bailable warrants were got issued and that there was in fact no lapse on the part of the respondents in serving the order of detention. He then REFERRED TO to paragraph I of the grounds of the counter affidavit of Shri Mahendra Prasad sworn on 3rd July, 1990. The relevant portion reads as under: "in reply to grounds 1 (a) to (j), it is submitted that detention order dated 19. 10. He then REFERRED TO to paragraph I of the grounds of the counter affidavit of Shri Mahendra Prasad sworn on 3rd July, 1990. The relevant portion reads as under: "in reply to grounds 1 (a) to (j), it is submitted that detention order dated 19. 10. 89 issued against the petitioner could not be served upon him till 29. 3. 90 as the detenu was not a vailable at his known addresses i. e. his residence and his guest house after his release on bail on 19. 10. 89. He neither appeared in the court of ACMM, New Delhi on appointed dates for which non-bailable warrants were issued against him twice. The detention order could be served on him only on 29. 3. 90 when he appeared in the court of ACMM, New Delhi for the first time after his release on bail. Regarding his availability at the addresses mentioned in sub-para (a) to (j) it is stated that this Directorate is not at all aware as to whether he was available at these places or not. "a perusal of the reply by the respondent clearly indicates that the facts mentioned therein are quite vague without indicating the details as to on which date the non-bailable warrants were issued and who made efforts to get them executed and what were the reports. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out any other material to indicate that all efforts were made for the execution of the order of detention on the petitioner. It is worth mentioning that as soon as the detaining authority forms an opinion that it is necessary to detain a person so as to prevent him from smuggling goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, it becomes necessary to execute the order immediately. In case the order is not executed the person concerned would continue to violate the provisons of the COFEPOSA- Act meaning thereby that there was no. subjective satisfaction -of the deteaining. authority for,passing the order of detention and thus the order stands, vitiated. T. A. Abdul Rehman v. State of Kerala and Ors. , 1989 (3) Judgment Today SC 444. In case the order is not executed the person concerned would continue to violate the provisons of the COFEPOSA- Act meaning thereby that there was no. subjective satisfaction -of the deteaining. authority for,passing the order of detention and thus the order stands, vitiated. T. A. Abdul Rehman v. State of Kerala and Ors. , 1989 (3) Judgment Today SC 444. is a clear authority of the Supreme Court stating therein that delay of three months between the date of order of detention and the arrest of the detenu if not explained would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and thus vitiates the order of detention. In the said case there was an unexplained delay of three months in the execution of the order. In the instant case the order of detention was passed on 19th October, 1989 and it was executed only on 29th March 1990 i. e. after a lapse of more than 5 months. This matter came up before this Court in a number of cases where the order of detention was not upheld on account of un-explained delay in the execution of the detention order. Reference in this regard can be made to cases Lalit Pataudi v. Union of India and others, 41 (1990) DLT 8, Man Mohan Singh vs. Union of India and others. 1988 (1) Delhi Lawyers 171 and also in Cr. W. 375 of 1986 Anwar S. Mann vs. Union of India and others decided on 11th December, 1986. ( 5 ) SECTION 7 of the Act provides for the procedure to be adopted in getting declared a person absconder when the order of detention was not served upon him. Even Sub-section (1) clause (a) provides that a report has to be made in writing to the concerned court and thereafter action has to be taken in terms of Sections 82, 83, 84 and 85 as well of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Clause (b) provides for the issuing of a notification in the official gazette against a person who is not available for being served with the order of detention. No such steps are stated to have been taken by the respondents even for getting an order notified in the official gazette against the petitioner. Clause (b) provides for the issuing of a notification in the official gazette against a person who is not available for being served with the order of detention. No such steps are stated to have been taken by the respondents even for getting an order notified in the official gazette against the petitioner. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING all these facts I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there has been an inordinate delay of more than 5 months in the execution of the order of detention issued against- the petitioner on account of which the order of detention is liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) IN view of my aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. The detention order dated 19th October, 1989 is set aside. The petitioner shall be released forthwith, if not required in any matter.