Judgment :- This writ petition is filed by the detenu himself under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention passed by the first respondent on 27-4-1989 against him and setting him at liberty. The impugned order was passed by the first respondent in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974) with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. The facts which led to the passing of the order has been elaborately dealt with in the grounds of detention which has been served on the detenu and hence we are of the view that there is no need to reiterate the same once again in this order, especially in view of the plea taken in this writ petition. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. K. A. Jabbar raised various contentions, he confined his arguments mainly to one ground, namely Ground No. 3(2), wherein it was contended that the detention order was passed against the detenu on 27-4-1989, but the detenu was arrested and detained only on 14-12-1989. Though the detenu was very much available, the authorities have not taken any care to execute the detention order and arrest the detenu. The inordinate and unreasonable delay in arresting the detenu shows that the apprehension of the detaining authority is neither real nor genuine. Further there is no fresh application of mind by the detaining authority to the delay and subsequent events. The long delay between the detention order and the detention snaps the link and there is no proximity. Therefore the delay in arresting and detaining the detenu vitiates the continued detention. In reply to the said allegation, it is averred in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in para 5 as follows: "...... it is submitted that the detention order and the grounds of detention were sent to the Secretary to the Government, Home (SAA) Department, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum along with the photograph of the detenu for execution. The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Trivandrum was reminded on 12-6-1989 for execution of the detention order. it is submitted that the detention order and the grounds of detention were sent to the Secretary to the Government, Home (SAA) Department, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum along with the photograph of the detenu for execution. The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Trivandrum was reminded on 12-6-1989 for execution of the detention order. A further intimation was sent on 21-6-1989 requesting the execution of the order in the name of Yousuf Mammunhi, since it was reported by the Assistant Collector, Madras that a copy reference sent in the name of Mohammed Mohammed Yousuf had been returned. This respondent received a communication dated 13-7-1989 from the Commissioner and Secretary, Home (SSA) Department, Trivandrum along with the copy of the report received from the Superintendent of Police, Kasargod. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Kasargod dated 8-7-1989 is to the effect that the detenu was absconding and careful efforts were being taken to arrest him. In the meanwhile 1-9-1989, the Assistant Collector Customs informed this respondent that a communication from the department addressed to the detenu in the name of Mammunhi was received and acknowledged by him on 17-8-1989. Therefore, further intimation was sent on 8-9-1989 to the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Kerala furnishing the address furnished the Customs authorities. Further reminders were sent on 16-10-1989 and 2-11-1989. The detenu was evading arrest till he was finally arrested on 14-12-1989 at Kerala. The delay in arresting the detenu was only due to misdeed of abscondence. Hence, there is no delay in arresting the detenu which would vitiate the detention." * 2. It is brought to the notice of this court by the learned counsel that in respect of very same incident, adjudication proceedings were taken and notices were issued by the sponsoring authority in respect of the said adjudication proceedings and the petitioner received number of notices and also he appeared before the sponsoring authority, but in spite of that, he was not arrested and in any event, the allegation that he was evading arrest cannot be true. It is soon from the adjudication order that a show-cause notice was issued to the detenu on 28-4-89 and the same was duly acknowledged by him on 6-5-89. Again, a reminder was sent on 2-6-89 and it was also acknowledged by the petitioner on 9-6-1989. The detenu sent a reply to the said notice on 20-6-89. It is soon from the adjudication order that a show-cause notice was issued to the detenu on 28-4-89 and the same was duly acknowledged by him on 6-5-89. Again, a reminder was sent on 2-6-89 and it was also acknowledged by the petitioner on 9-6-1989. The detenu sent a reply to the said notice on 20-6-89. It is further seen that the detenu wanted copies of the documents and the same was furnished by communication dated 4-7-89 and it was received by him on 12-7-89. Personal hearing notice fixing the date of hearing on 11-9-89 was sent on 10-8-89 and it was received by him on 17-8-89. The detenu sent a telegram on 11-9-1989. Again the hearing was fixed on 29-9-89. The notice for personal hearing on 12-9-89 was received by the detenu on 19-9-89. On 29-9-89, counsel appeared and prayed for time for the personal appearance of the detenu and for getting ready with the enquiry. Accordingly, it was adjourned on 17-10-89. On that day, the detenu, even as per the adjudication order, appeared before the sponsoring authority. It is clear from the adjudication order dated 6-11-1989 passed by the sponsoring authority, namely the Collector of Customs, that the detenu was available in his usual place of residence and received all the notice issued by the sponsoring authority. He also appeared in connection with the enquiry during the relevant period. It is only long after that, the arrest was made in the instant case as seen from the counter affidavit. It is not stated as to when the detention order was sent to the Secretary to Government of Kerala for execution. Further, there was no reply from the Government of Kerala as to when action was taken on that. Hence a reminder was sent on 12-6-1989 for execution of the detention order. For the first time only on 13-7-89 the Commissioner and Secretary, Home Depart., Trivandrum, sent a communication to the respondent, enclosing the report of the Superintendent of Police, Kasargod dated 8-7-89 to the effect that the detenu was absconding and efforts are being taken to arrest him. Beyond that there is absolutely nothing to show that as to what are the efforts that were taken in order to secure the arrest of the detenu and as to why they could not arrest him. Beyond that there is absolutely nothing to show that as to what are the efforts that were taken in order to secure the arrest of the detenu and as to why they could not arrest him. It is stated that no report of any officials of the Government of Kerala or the Superintendent of Police, Kasargod, who has been entrusted with the job of securing the arrest of the detenu, has been filed in this case. It is significant to note that no mention was made in the counter even though the receipt of the communication by the detenu dated 17-8-1989 was intimated by the sponsoring authority, he had not intimated about the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the detenu to produce the detenu for personal hearing on 17-10-89 and also about his appearance on 17-10-89 in connection with the adjudication proceedings. Hence we do not have any materials even from the counter affidavit to show that effective steps had been taken to secure the arrest of detenu. On the other hand, as seen from the adjudication order produced before us that the detenu was very much available and no steps have been taken to securing his arrest. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in T. D. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala 1990 AIR(SC) 225, 1991 (70) CC 578, 1989 (3) Crimes 186, 1989 CAR 317, 1990 (5) CrLJ 78, 1990 CrLR(SC) 15, 1989 (25) ECR 296, 1989 (3) JT 444 , 1989 (2) Scale 388 , 1989 (4) SCC 741 , 1990 SCC(Cr) 76, 1989 (3) SCR 945 , 1990 (1) UJ 116 , 1990 (1) APLJ 316 : 1990 AIR(SC) 225, 1991 (70) CC 578, 1989 (3) Crimes 186, 1989 CAR 317, 1990 (5) CrLJ 78, 1990 CrLR(SC) 15, 1989 (25) ECR 296, 1989 (3) JT 444 , 1989 (2) Scale 388 , 1989 (4) SCC 741 , 1990 SCC(Cr) 76, 1989 (3) SCR 945 , 1990 (1) UJ 116 , 1990 (1) APLJ 316 ) wherein Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as follows at page 229 (Para 11). "However, when there is indue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, the Court has to scrutinise whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned, when called upon to answer and further the Court has to investigate whether the casual connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case (Para 12). Similarly, when there is unsatisfactory and unexplained delay between the date of 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' subjective 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 (Para 13). In the light of the above proposition of law, we shall now examine the first contention which has been raised for the first time before this Court. From the reading of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is seen that the detaining authority has attempted to explain the laxity that has occasioned in passing the impugned order, but miserably failed in explaining the delay of three months in securing the arrest of the detenu from the date of the passing of the order, and keeps stunned silence on that score. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent when queried by this Court whether he could give any reason for this undue delay in arresting the detenu on 18-1-88 in pursuance of the impugned order of detention made on 7-10-87, he has frankly admitted that he could not do so rightly so in our view in the absence of any explanation in the counter affidavit. The Superintendent of Police, Malapurram to whom the detention order was forwarded for execution has not filed any supporting affidavit explaining the delay in securing the arrest of the detenu. The Superintendent of Police, Malapurram to whom the detention order was forwarded for execution has not filed any supporting affidavit explaining the delay in securing the arrest of the detenu. Under these circumstances, we hold that leaving apart the question of delay in passing the order of detention from the date of the seizure of the gold, the fact remains 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 detention order and this non-explanation in our view throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority vitiating the validity of the order of detention." * 3. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor drew our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Abdul Salam v. Union of india,: 1990 CrLJ 1502 ) wherein it was held (at page 1450). "Yet another ground urged by the learned counsel is that there was delay in arresting the detenu after the detention order was passed and therefore there is no genuineness in the detention order. In the counter affidavit it is stated that after the detention order was passed, it was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram on 23-5-88 for immediate execution and they were passed on to Circle Inspector, Malappuram. On 29-6-88, it was reported that the Circle Inspector had made due enquiries but the detenu could not be apprehended. Thereupon a special squad was deputed as per the directions of the Superintendent of Police and thereafter he was detained on 6-8-88. It is further submitted in the counter-affidavit that the delay in execution of the order is caused due to detenu's deliberate attempt to make himself scarce. That apart there is no decision where a Court has gone to the extent of holding that a mere delay in arresting the accused renders the detention invalid. In the instant case, the delay, if at all, is only about 2 1/2 months and the explanation offered for the delay, is reasonable. That apart there is no decision where a Court has gone to the extent of holding that a mere delay in arresting the accused renders the detention invalid. In the instant case, the delay, if at all, is only about 2 1/2 months and the explanation offered for the delay, is reasonable. The learned counsel, however, relied on Abdul Rahman's case 1990 AIR(SC) 225, 1991 (70) CC 578, 1989 (3) Crimes 186, 1989 CAR 317, 1990 (5) CrLJ 78, 1990 CrLR(SC) 15, 1989 (25) ECR 296, 1989 (3) JT 444 , 1989 (2) Scale 388 , 1989 (4) SCC 741 , 1990 SCC(Cr) 76, 1989 (3) SCR 945 , 1990 (1) UJ 116 , 1990 (1) APLJ 316 : 1990 AIR(SC) 225, 1991 (70) CC 578, 1989 (3) Crimes 186, 1989 CAR 317, 1990 (5) CrLJ 78, 1990 CrLR(SC) 15, 1989 (25) ECR 296, 1989 (3) JT 444 , 1989 (2) Scale 388 , 1989 (4) SCC 741 , 1990 SCC(Cr) 76, 1989 (3) SCR 945 , 1990 (1) UJ 116 , 1990 (1) APLJ 316 ). In that case the detention order was passed on 7-10-87 and the detenu was arrested on 18-1-88. The Court found that there was no reasonable explanation for the delay in the counter-affidavit at all. This ground was taken into consideration along with the other important grounds in quashing the detention. In S. K. Serajul v. State of West Bengal 1973 (2) SCC 78 : 1975 CrLJ 1328 ) it is observed that'There was delay, both at the stage of passing the order of detention and in arresting him, and this delay, unless satisfactorily explained, would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction ..... But this must not be misunderstand to mean that whenever there is delay in making an order of detention or in arresting the detenu pursuant to the order of detention, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be held to be not genuine or colourable. Each case must depend on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. The detaining authority may have a reasonable explanation for the delay and that might be sufficient to dispel the inference that its satisfaction was not genuine.' It can therefore be seen that on the mere delay in arresting the detenu pursuant to the order of detention the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority cannot be held to be not genuine. The detaining authority may have a reasonable explanation for the delay and that might be sufficient to dispel the inference that its satisfaction was not genuine.' It can therefore be seen that on the mere delay in arresting the detenu pursuant to the order of detention the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority cannot be held to be not genuine. Each case depends on its own facts and circumstances. The Court has to see whether the delay is explained reasonably. As mentioned above, in the instant case, we are satisfied with the explanation for the delay in arresting the detenu. Therefore this contention is also liable to be rejected ......" * 4. It is seen from the above decision relied on by the Public Prosecutor that each case depends upon its own peculiar facts. As there was a delay on only 3 1/2 months in arresting the detenu, Their Lordship have accepted the explanation which in their view was reasonable and as such this ratio is an authority for the proposition that each case depends upon its own facts and it is for the Court to find how far the respondents have explained the delay in securing the arrest of the accused. As rightly held in the decision reported in 1990 AIR(SC) 225, 1991 (70) CC 578, 1989 (3) Crimes 186, 1989 CAR 317, 1990 (5) CrLJ 78, 1990 CrLR(SC) 15, 1989 (25) ECR 296, 1989 (3) JT 444 , 1989 (2) Scale 388 , 1989 (4) SCC 741 , 1990 SCC(Cr) 76, 1989 (3) SCR 945 , 1990 (1) UJ 116 , 1990 (1) APLJ 316 : 1990 AIR(SC) 225, 1991 (70) CC 578, 1989 (3) Crimes 186, 1989 CAR 317, 1990 (5) CrLJ 78, 1990 CrLR(SC) 15, 1989 (25) ECR 296, 1989 (3) JT 444 , 1989 (2) Scale 388 , 1989 (4) SCC 741 , 1990 SCC(Cr) 76, 1989 (3) SCR 945 , 1990 (1) UJ 116 , 1990 (1) APLJ 316 ) T. D. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala, in the instant case no supporting counter affidavit has been filed by the police officials, for the delay is nearly 7 1/2 months. Further the respondents have miserably failed in explaining the delay in securing the arrest of the detenu from the date of passing the order. Further the respondents have miserably failed in explaining the delay in securing the arrest of the detenu from the date of passing the order. As already discussed, the petitioner was able to establish that he was not evading arrest and he was very much available and he was also appearing before the sponsoring authority on various dates in connection with the very same incident in the matter of adjudication proceedings. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the delay of 7 1/2 months in arresting the accused has not been explained and failure to authority question validate considerable doubt about the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the sponsoring authority. For the above reason, the order of detention is vitiated. Since we have come to the conclusion that the order of detention is vitiated on this ground alone, we refrain from going into the other contentions. 5. For all these reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention passed against the detenu is quashed and he is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.