G. S. N. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) INSAN Ali has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the detention order dated 14th November 1991 passed under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA) by the State of Uttar Pradesh. ( 2 ) IT appears that on 2. 4. 199 1, truck bearing registration No. UMC 8111 was interrupted in District Bahraich on which eight persons including the petitioner were found travelling. On search of the truck, foreign goods consisting of torches, bulb, video cassettes and balm etc. worth Rs. 1,88,700/- were recovered. There was no licence or permit of proof of payment of excise duty and, therefore, prima facie it was taken for granted by the custom authorities seizing the truck that the said goods were smuggled into the country without any valid permit ( 3 ) SRI Daya Shanker Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised primarily only one ground and that is that the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate at Allahabad who initially rejected the bail because the petitioner was wanted in a case registered under the Customs Act, but his bail application was allowed by this Court on 14. 6. 1991 and therefore, there is no explanation at almost to why detention order was passed after exactly five months of the release of the petitioner by the order of the High Court. There were two other questions ancillary raised and these are that the order of detention was served on the petitioner on 9. 1. 1992 for which there is no valid explanation as nothing prevented the opposite parties from effecting the order within reasonable period counted from 14. 11. 1991, and secondly that the detaining authority being already in the know of the bail order, could not necessarily have delayed the passing of the detention order till about five months of the release of the petitioner on bail. 11. 1991, and secondly that the detaining authority being already in the know of the bail order, could not necessarily have delayed the passing of the detention order till about five months of the release of the petitioner on bail. ( 4 ) SRI Shivaji Misra, learned A. G. A. drew the attention of the Court is I the two counter affidavits filed on behalf of the Jailer and the Police Sub inspector saying that since the petitioner was arrested at the spot and the fact that he has been granted bail was also mentioned in the grounds of detention release of the petitioner through this writ petition in wholly uncalled for. ( 5 ) THE point in controversy, therefore, boils down the simple fact as to whether there is any explanation by the detaining authority as to how and why he has taken exactly five months to pass the detention order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the celebrated decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sk. Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal. In the said cited case, the accused was detained on 23. 11. 1973 whereas the detention order was passed on 10. 9. 1973; after about two and a half months. It was held that no information was supplied to the Court as to the date of, discharge of the petitioner in pursuance of the witness not supporting the case and, therefore it was held by the Hontble Supreme Court that on those facts it could not be said that the District Magistrate has applied his mind and arrived at a real and genuine satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in a prejudicial manner. The condition precedent for making the order of detention was, therefore, not satisfied and consequently the order of detention could not be sustained. ( 6 ) SRI Shivaji Misra, however, wanted to place reliance on the observation in paragraph 3, second column of the said decision to the following effect of course, when we say this we must not be understood to mean that whenever there is delay 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. Each case must depend on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. As the question itself indicates, the said observation related to the date of arrest after passing of the detention order. There cannot possibly be any objection to the aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court, which is binding on all Courts and Tribunals. But the joint in controversy is actual, passing of the detention order itself. Therefore, the paragraph referred to above fully covers the case of the petitioner and not the attempted exception jointed out by Sri Shivaji Misra. ( 7 ) THERE is yet another important factor in this case. In spite of time having been granted to the State Counsel to file counter affidavit of the detaining authority, no counter affidavit till date has been filed. Therefore, there is no material on the record to indicate as to how and why the detaining authority had passed the detention order after five months of the release of the petitioner on bail from custody. ( 8 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances noted above, there is no explanation as to why the detention order was not passed, if it was at all necessary, within close proximity of the direction of this Court to release the petitioner on bail. Therefore, recording of the satisfaction by the detaining authority has been, vitiated. ( 9 ) THIS writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Detention order dated 14. 11. 1991 is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. Petition allowed. .