Judgment : NAINAR SUNDARAM, J. 1. THE pivotal point, which has been urged by Mr. S. Govind Swaminathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu in the instant case, coveting his release is that there has been an inordinate delay, which has not been convincingly explained in securing the arrest of the detenu pursuant to the order of detention. The order of detention was made on 31-5-1990. The apprehension of the detenu took place only an 4-1-1991. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the point has been taken as ground 11 in the following manner: Though the order of detention was passed on 31-5-1990 there was a long delay in execution of the detention order. I was available and there is no reason given why such long time taken to execute the detention order. The incident itself took place on 28-11-1989 and the order was served on me after more than one year. Hence, the incident has been stale and there is no allegation that I have been indulged in any violations therefore hence, the need for detaining me does not exist. T In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, the explanation offered is found as follows: With regard to ground 11, it is submitted that the Petitioner could not be detained immediately after issue of detention order, inasmuch as he vacated his premises at Madurai soon after the actions were taken against him. The petitioner was also not available in his native place Kilakarai. It is only because of this act of the petitioners absconding that the Petitioner could not be detained after the issue of the detention order. It is therefore submitted that the nexus has not snapped and has strengthened. As regards the incident having taken place on 28-11-1989 and the order having been served on the petitioner after one year. It is submitted that the investigation in this matter had been completed only on 21-3-1990. This would be clear from the fact that on the said date the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras, replied to the Petitioner. It is humbly submitted that the allegation in the said ground No. 11 as though the detention order passed on 31-5-1990 was delayed in its execution is wholly without merit in the facts and circumstances of the case. This would be clear from the fact that on the said date the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras, replied to the Petitioner. It is humbly submitted that the allegation in the said ground No. 11 as though the detention order passed on 31-5-1990 was delayed in its execution is wholly without merit in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, even assuming without admitting, that there is any delay it is submitted that such delay is not of a nature that would snap the nexus necessitating the petitioners preventive detention. Nor has the incident became stale so as to vitiate the detention. 2. 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 a 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 (vide T. A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala1) 3. IN Bhawarlal Ganesh Malji v. State of Tamil Nadu2, it was held that there must be live, and proximate link between the grounds of detention alleged by the detaining authority and the avowed purpose of detention, and in appropriate cases it is possible to assume that the link is Snapped if there is a long and unexplained delay between the date of the order of detention and the arrest of the detenu. This proposition was taken note of in Shafiq Ahmed v. District Magistrate. Meerut3. 4. HOWEVER, Mr. C. A. Sundaram, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the first-respondent, submits that the counter-affidavit of the first-respondent does offer an explanation, and this Court has to accept it and act upon it as offering sufficient explanation for the delay in apprehending the detenu. It is true, it is set out in the counter affidavit of the first respondent as per the extract made above that the detenu vacated his premises at Madurai and further he was not available in his native place Kilakarai; and it was only because of the act of the detenu absconding, he could not be detained after the issue of order of detention. Bare averments by the first respondent by themselves would not constitute an acceptable and convincing explanation for the delay. They have to be sub3tantiated before Court especially when the detenu has stated that he was available. One way of substantiating the explanation for the delay is to secure the affidavit of the authority, who was entrusted with the execution of the order of detention, setting forth the facts and circumstances which delayed the execution of the order of detention. If such an affidavit has come before Court, and if the detenu chooses to challenge the averments therein, there may be still necessity for the Court to insist for production of the relevant records in substantiation of the averments made by the authority entrusted with the work of execution of the order of detention. In the present case, no such supporting affidavit has come before Court. The first-respondent was not the authority entrusted with the work of execution of the order of detention. He could not be attributed with personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances, on the basis of which it could be stated that the detenu was absconding and hence the order of detention could not be effectuated. The details of the steps taken to apprehend the detenu and how they were frustrated by the absconding of the detenu, must have a comprehensive exposure by the authority entrusted with that work. The need for the filing of such a supporting affidavit has been duly stressed in T. A. Abdul, Rahman v. State of Kerala (supra ). It is true that whenever there is some delay in arresting, it is not be straightway held that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not genuine and is colourable. Each case must depend on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. But; if it is found that there is no satisfactory and convincing explanation for the delay, that would demonstrate and lead to the legitimate conclusion or inference that there was no real and genuine satisfaction as regards the necessity to detain the detenu. On the facts and circumstances of the case, no conviction and satisfaction are brought to our mind with regard to the delay of over seven months in apprehending the detenu. On the facts and circumstances of the case, no conviction and satisfaction are brought to our mind with regard to the delay of over seven months in apprehending the detenu. When we eschew the explanation thus offered, which is inadequate, unconvincing and unsubstantiated, we find that the ratio of the Supreme Court, referred to above, has got to be applied, and if so applied, the detenu is entitled to succeed in obtaining his release. Accordingly, this writ Petition is allowed, and we direct that the detenu in the instant case shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. We make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.