JUDGMENT (ORAL) S.W. Puranik, J. - The petitioner who is the wife of the detenu Dilip Kapurchand Solanki has preferred this Petition challenging the order dated 25th July 1991 passed by the 1st respondent and issued under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, detaining her husband Dilip Solanki. 2. On information received by the Customs Officers of M. P. Wing of Customs Preventive Collectorate, Bombay, on 28th November 1990, a search of Room No. 33, 2nd Floor, Unwalla Building, Love Lane, Mazgaon, Bombay, was conducted. A steel cup-board was round locked. On opening the said steel cup-board, the Customs Officers recovered three heavy packets. As the said place was not convenient for detailed inventory. The said packets alongwith Smt. Pathare, and Shri Pappu, who were present at the time of the search, were taken to the Customs Office at Marine Lines, Bombay. On opening the packets, 10, 15 and 25 foreign marked gold bars were recovered from each of the three packets respectively. All these 50 foreign marked gold bars were of 10 Tolas each, valued at Rs. 20 Lakhs. In the follow-up action, other residential premises of the connected persons were searched. In the premises of the detenu at Room No. 29, 2nd Floor, Unwalla Building, Love Lane, Byculla, Bombay, Indian currency worth Rs. 16,700/- was also recovered. Thereafter, investigation was conducted and by an order dated 25th July 1991 the detenu has been detained. The order of detention was served on the detenu on 20th September 1991. 3. Shri J.A. Barday, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenged the said order of detention on the ground of delay in issuing the order of detention as also delay in execution of the order of detention, thereby snapping the live-link between the prejudicial activity of 28th November 1990 and the purpose of detention. 4. As regards the delay in issue of order of detention, the facts are that the incident is dated 28th November 1990 while the order of detention has been issued on 25th July 1991, i.e., after about 8 months. This ground is ground No. (xxiv) at Page 16A of the Petition. 5. The 1st respondent-Shri J.P. Dange has filed his affidavit-in-reply. In paragraph 25 of his reply-affidavit, he has attempted to explain the delay in issue of this order of detention. This ground is ground No. (xxiv) at Page 16A of the Petition. 5. The 1st respondent-Shri J.P. Dange has filed his affidavit-in-reply. In paragraph 25 of his reply-affidavit, he has attempted to explain the delay in issue of this order of detention. Admittedly, the incident took place on 28th November 1990 and on 30th November 1990 the Prosecution Cell of the Customs Department forwarded the investigation papers to the COFEPOSA Cell. The COFEPOSA Cell drafted the proposal for detention and sent it onwards to the screening Committee for its approval. It may be noted that the date when the proposal was drafted and the date when the proposal was forwarded to the Screening Committee are not stated in the reply-affidavit. However, the further fact that the screening Committee cleared the proposal in its meeting on 25th March 1991 indicates that the proposal must have been received by the Screening Committee in the same month of March 1991 at about the time of the meeting. Thus, from 30th November, 1990 to 25th March 1991, almost four months have elapsed for sending the proposal to the Screening Committee. There is no satisfactory explanation for this delay. On the other hand, even the relevant dates between 30th November 1990 and 25th March 1991 are not stated in the reply-affidavit 6. After the approval of the Screening Committee on 25th March 1991, again a month has elapsed for obtaining xerox copies of the documents and forwarding them to the State Government. The 1st respondent-detaining authority then considered the proposal after another two months, i.e., on 7th June 1991 and drafted the grounds of detention. This is another delay of two months in considering the proposal received by the detaining authority. Lastly, we find that after carrying out the usual formalities of collecting copies and translations, the order of detention came to be passed on 25th July 1991. 7. Since the investigation was over within a few days after 28th November 1990 and the papers of investigation were also received by the COFEPOSA Cell for the purpose of detention, we fail to understand how the prejudicial activity of 28th November 1990 - the solitary incident of prejudicial activity - could have a subsisting livelink for the purpose of preventive detention in July 1991, i.e after about 8 months. We have no hesitation to hold that the live-link had snapped between the prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention, rendering the order of detention itself invalid. 8. For the above reasons, we do not find it necessary to discuss the other grounds urged in the Petition. Hence the following order: 9. The Petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of detention dated 25th July 1991 passed against the detenu is quashed and set aside. The detenu be released forthwith, if not otherwise required. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition allowed.