Judgment : NAINAR SUNDARAM, J.: 1. In the present case coveting the release of the detenu after quashing the order of detention, the only ground that is being urged by Mr.B.Kumar, learned counsel for the detenu (petitioner herein) is the delay in securing the arrest of the detenu. The order of detention is dated 2.4.1990. The detenu was actually apprehended on 10.12.1990. It is true that if the long delay is left unexplained, it will vitiate the order of detention. In Shafiq Ahmed v. District Magistrate, Meerut and others, A.I.R 1990 S.C. 22 the failure to explainthe delay of three months in securing the arrest of the detenu from the date of passing of the order was taken note of as throwing considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority vitiating the validity of the order of detention. While doing so, the Supreme Court pointed out that there was no supporting affidavit from the officer entrusted with the duty of executing the order of detention. The relevant passage in the above pronouncement runs as follows: “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 then queried by this Court whether he could give any reason for this undue delay in arresting the detenu on 18.1.1988 in pursuance of the impugned order of detention made on 7.10.1987, 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, Malappuram 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, Malappuram 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.” 2. Keeping in mind the above principle, we are obliged to examine the facts of the present case. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the grievance over this delay has been expressed in paragraphs 6 to 8 thereof and they run as follows: “I say and submit that the detention order in any event is not sustainable as no effort has been made for arresting or detaining me after the detention order has been passed as early as 2.4.1990. This itself shows that the authorities’ satisfaction that my detention is imminently required is not bona fide. In any event the nexus has long been snapped such that my incarceration at this stage is thoroughly unjustified and punitive in nature. I did not make myself scarce or absconded In fact, I continued to be a broker of Maruthu Pandiyan Transport Corporation bus until I was arrested and detained in pursuance to the detention on 12.12.1990. It may be seen that the Customs Department prosecuted me by filing a complaint before the Court of learned First Class Judicial Magistrate at Poonamalee. I am not able to say as to when exactly the complaint was filed. However, after the summons was received from the Court I met my counsel in May, 1990 certain applications were filed in the Court and I appeared before the Court on 30.5.1990 and the Court passed a judgment imposing a fine of Rs.2,000 only. The fine was paid by me on that date. Needless to say all this took place in the presence of the counsel of the Customs Department. The fine was paid by me on that date. Needless to say all this took place in the presence of the counsel of the Customs Department. Even at that time, I was not informed of the detention order having been passed or taken into custody. This is not all. The learned Magistrate has also directed that my passport and F.T.S.R. for Rs.250 in the form of Travellers’ Cheque be returned to me. The application was filed for return of the passport and I was asked to come to the Court on several occasions during the month of July, 1990. However, it was only in August, 1990, the passport was returned to me by the Court by the I Class judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee. I went and received the passport after duly signing the necessary registry in the office of the learned Magistrate. It is also significant that on that date customs cases were heard and the counsel of the customs was also present. This application was ordered after notice to them. Even at this stage, I was neither told of the detention order nor communicated.” 3. There is the counter affidavit filed by the concerned Joint Secretary to Government, on behalf of the first-respondent and with regard to this aspect, paragraphs 5 and 6 thereof are relevant and they stand extracted as follows: “This respondent denies the averment made in paragraph 6 of the affidavit that no effort has been made for arresting or detaining the petitioner after passing of the detention order. The detention order was issued on 2.4.1990. The detention order was sent to the D.I.G. of Police, C.I.D. (Intelligence), Madras, on 2.4.1990 for execution. This respondent requested the D.I.G., Madras to return the detention order again the petitioner on 18.5.1990 for verifications. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madras, returned the detention order on 22.5.1990 which was received by this respondent on 22.5.1990. The detention order was against sent to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madras on 25.5.1990 for execution. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madras was reminded on 1.7.1990 and on 16.9.1990 for execution of detention order. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madras, returned the detention order on 22.5.1990 which was received by this respondent on 22.5.1990. The detention order was against sent to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madras on 25.5.1990 for execution. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madras was reminded on 1.7.1990 and on 16.9.1990 for execution of detention order. The Superintendent of Police, Sivaganga in his letters, dated 5.8.1990 and 7.9.1990 has stated that the Sub Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi has made enquiries at llayangudi, Karaikudi, Trichy and Madras to secure the petitioner and it is learned that the individual does not have any permanent residence and he is wandering here and there. The Inspector and Sub Inspector of llayangudi have set up informants to secure the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police also instructed the Inspector of Police to take effective steps to secure the detenu and serve the detention order. Action has been taken under Sec.7(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA Act and directed the individual to appear before the Additional Secretary to Government Public (S.C.) Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9 at his office within a period of 15 days from the date of publication of this order in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. The Additional Collector of Customs, Madras was informed on 22.11.1990 that the notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette for the week ending 31.10.1990 and requesting him to give vide publicity in the newspapers and other media for tracing the abscondee. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madras was requested to send an affidavit from the Police Officer who has been entrusted with the execution of the order, on the action taken so far for the apprehension of the individual. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madras in his report dated 26.11.1990 has stated that the Superintendent of Police, Ramnad was requested to obtain and send the affidavit from the Police Officer immediately and also inform the headquarters of the Magistrate of first class having jurisdiction over the area in which the individual resides. The detenu was arrested on 10.12.1990. From this, it could be seen that there is no delay in executing the detention order. This respondent denies the averments made in paras 7, 8 and 9 of the affidavit that the petitioner did not make himself scarce or abscond. The detenu was arrested on 10.12.1990. From this, it could be seen that there is no delay in executing the detention order. This respondent denies the averments made in paras 7, 8 and 9 of the affidavit that the petitioner did not make himself scarce or abscond. It is not true to say that the petitioner continued to be a broker of Maruthu Pandiyan Transport Corporation Bus until he was arrested. The petitioner was not available in the address given by him. The petitioner did not also appear despite the gazette notification issued on 31.10.1990 directing him to appear before the Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu.” 4. If the first respondent has stopped with the said counter affidavit, there could be a complaint that what has been offered as an explanation has not found corroboration from the Police Officials who were entrusted with the duty of executing the order of detention. But, here we find that there are two supporting affidavits. The first supporting affidavit has been sworn to by the concerned Superintendent of Police. The relevant averments in this counter affidavit run as follows: “The Government had issued orders in G.O.SR-I/271-5/90 on 2.4.1990 for the detention of one Thiru Abdul Saleem alias Maideen Kadar, I. No.11-BPulavar Street,llayangudi, II No.4,Kasim Street,Ilayangudi, under Sec.3(1)(i) of COFEPOSA Act 1974 (Central Act 52/74). My predecessor received the COFEPOSA detention order from the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.I.D. (Int.), Madras on 2.4.1990 and he entrusted the same to the then Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi Thiru P.A. Subramanian on 3.4.1990, with instructions to execute the same at once. Immediately on 4.4.1990 Thiru P.A. Subramanian, then Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi, had taken steps to execute the detention order. He made search in the two addresses given in para 1 above, but in vain. The whereabouts of the petitioner was not known. On 30.4.1990, the present Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi Thiru A.K. Ramaiah made search for the petitioner in the two addresses given, but in vain. The petitioner was not at Ilayangudi. Then he verified the same from important persons and informants of those areas. They stated that one Abdul Saleem of Madras was loitering here and there as a wanderer. During the months of May and June, 1990, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi had made further attempts to execute the detention order by searching for the petitioner at Ilayangudi, Karaikudi, Trichy and Madras. They stated that one Abdul Saleem of Madras was loitering here and there as a wanderer. During the months of May and June, 1990, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi had made further attempts to execute the detention order by searching for the petitioner at Ilayangudi, Karaikudi, Trichy and Madras. But in vain. In the month of July 1990, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi and his staff made search for the petitioner at Ilayangudi, Karaikudi, Trichy and Madras. No definite information was forthcoming about the whereabouts of the petitioner. During August, 1990 Sub-Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi and his staff searched for the petitioner at Ilayangudi, Trichy, Karaikudi and Madras, but in vain. During the months of September, October and November 1990 the present Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi and his staff made search of the petitioner at Ilayangudi, Tanjore, Kumbakonam, Pudukottai, Karaikudi and Madras. The where abouts of the petitioner was not known and the efforts were in vain. Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi, set up informants at Madurai, Karaikudi, Devakottai, Ilayangudi, Madras and Thiruppathur. In addition to that he made elaborate enquiries and searched for the detenu at Ilayangudi, Sivagangai, Thiruppathur and Karaikudi, but in vain. Further, as instructed, the Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi verified the address of the petitioner through the village administrative Officer, Ilayangudi and found that there is no such person by name Abdul Saleem alias Maideen Khader, son of Abdul Rahim in the said address at Ilayangudi and the V.A.O., also issued a certificate to that effect on 6.12.1990. On 10.12.1990 at 20.30 hours the Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi Thiru A.K. Ramaiah, arrested the petitioner Thiru Abdul Saleem, age 63/, s/o.Abdul Rahim at the bus stand, Ilayangudi and in accordance with the detention order in G.O.No.SR-I/271-5/90 of Additional Secretary to the Government, Public (S.C.) Department, Madras-9 dated 2.4.90, the Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi lodged him in the Central Prison, Madurai on 11.12.1990 at 01.00 hours where the detenu was assigned COFEPOSA Jail No.984 of 1990. The delay was due to non-availability of the petitioner at the address furnished in the detention order and no information about his whereabouts.” 5. The delay was due to non-availability of the petitioner at the address furnished in the detention order and no information about his whereabouts.” 5. The second supporting affidavit is that of the concerned Inspector of Police and the averments thereof run as follows: “1 submit that the Government had issued orders in G.O.No.SR-I/271-5/90 dated 2.4.1990 for the detention of Thiru Abdul Saleem alias Maideen Kadar, I No.11 B.Pulavar Street,Ilayangudi, II No.4,Kasim Street,Ilayangudi under Sec.3(1)(i) of COFEPOSA Act, 1974, Central Act 52 of 1974. 2. My predecessor Inspector P.A. Subramanian received COFEPOSA detention order against one Abdul Saleem alias Maideen Kadar, son of Abdul Rahim, Ilayangudi, Pasumpon Thevar Thirumagan District from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Pasumpon Thevar Thirumagan District on 3.4.1990, with instruction to execute the same. 3. Immediately on 4.4.1990, Thiru Subramanian, then Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi, has taken strenuous efforts to execute the detention order. He made search in the two addresses given in para 1 above. But in vain. The whereabouts of the petitioner was not known. On 30.4.90 I made search for the petitioner in the two addresses given in para 1 above. But in vain. The petitioner was not at Ilayangudi. Then I verified that same from important persons and informants. They have stated that one Abdul Saleem of Madras was wandering here and there as wanderer. In the months of May and June, 1990 the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi Thiru Sankar and his staff made search for this petitioner at Ilayangudi, Karaikudi,Trichy and Madras. But in vain. The whereabouts of the petitioner was not known. In the month of July, 1990 the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi Thiru A.Ilango and his staff made search for the petitioner at Ilayangudi, Karaikudi.Trichy and Madras. But in vain. The whereabouts of the petitioner was not known. In the month of August, 1990 the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi and his staff made search for the petitioner at Ilayangudi, Trichy, Karaikudi and Madras. But in vain. The whereabouts of the petitioner was not known. In the months of September, October and November, 1990, I and my staff made search of the petitioner at Ilayangudi, Thanjavur, Kumbakonam, Pudukottai, Karaikudi and Madras. But in vain. The whereabouts of the petitioner was not known. I set up informants at Madurai, Karaikudi, Devakottai, Ilayangudi, Madras and Thiruppathur. But in vain. The whereabouts of the petitioner was not known. In the months of September, October and November, 1990, I and my staff made search of the petitioner at Ilayangudi, Thanjavur, Kumbakonam, Pudukottai, Karaikudi and Madras. But in vain. The whereabouts of the petitioner was not known. I set up informants at Madurai, Karaikudi, Devakottai, Ilayangudi, Madras and Thiruppathur. In addition, I made elaborate enquiries and searched for the detenu at Ilayangudi, Sivagangai, Thiruppathur and Karaikudi Muslim Street. But in vain. Further, I verified about the detenu, with Village Administrative Officer, Ilayangudi He stated that Thiru Abdul Saleem alias Maideen Kadar, son of Abdul Rahim was not in that address. To this effect, I obtained a certificate from the Village Administrative Officer, Ilayangudi on 6.12.1990, which is also enclosed along with this affidavit. Subsequently, on 10.12.1990 at 20.30 hours, I arrested Thiru Abdul Saleem age 63, son of Abdul Rahim, at the bus-stand of Ilayangudi, as per the detention order G.O.No.SR-I/271-5/90 of Additional Secretary to the Government, Public (S.C.) Department, Madras-9, dated 2.4.1990. I lodged him in the Central Prison, Madurai on 11.12.1990 at 10.00 hours in COFEPOSA Jail No.984. A certificate from the Village Administrative Officer has also been produced. 6. On behalf of the Second-respondent, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the concerned Assistant Collector of Customs and on the question of delay, this is what has been stated in the said counter-affidavit; “As regards para 6 it is submitted that the detention order was issued on 2.4.1990. This order was pending execution with the concerned Inspector of Police and as such the delay in the detention was due to the fact that he was absconding and was not found in his usual place of residence. As regards paras 7 and 8 it is submitted that the complaint was filed in the Judicial Magistrates Court, Poonamallee on 23.5.1990. The defence lawyer filed a petition dated 24.5.1990 on 30.5.1990 under Sec.138 of the Customs Act, 1962 for as summary trial(S.T.C.4287/90) of the case. The case was disposed of by the Court, the same day. Therefore no prior intimation could be given to the State Government/Police authorities regarding the date of trial. As regards the return of passport a petition was filed on 30.5.1990 for its release and the detenu would have taken delivery from the Court, any day without any intimation to the department. Therefore no prior intimation could be given to the State Government/Police authorities regarding the date of trial. As regards the return of passport a petition was filed on 30.5.1990 for its release and the detenu would have taken delivery from the Court, any day without any intimation to the department. Here again, the department was not aware of the date on which he came and took delivery of the passport from the Court.” 7. A cogent and a reasonable reading of the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, in our view, does not bring the case on hand as one where there is no explanation at all for not securing the arrest of the detenu with expedition. It is not a case of keeping a stunned silence on this aspect. We have no doubt in our mind that all reasonable and honest endeavours were, in fact, made for securing the arrest of the detenu and only on account of the non-availability of the detenu, the order of detention could not be executed. The circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner/detenu namely, the end of the criminal prosecution, the return of the Travellers’ cheque, the return of the passport and the reply to the show cause, do not by themselves prove that the detenu could be stated to be accessible for being apprehended. There is explanation convincing to us for the authorities not being able to apprehend the detenu. We do not think that we should insist for minute by minute explanation for not apprehending the detenu. A person is capable of making himself scarce inspite of all the proceedings and successfully preventing his apprehension. This being our conclusion on assessment of the facts of the case, as exposed before us, we are not persuaded to accept the only ground of attack put forth by the learned counsel for the petitionerdetenu, coveting the release of the detenu. No other point was urged. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.