S. C. Jain ( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the detention orderpassed against him under Section 3 (1) read with Section 2 (f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,1974 (in short COFEPOSA) on 8-10-1992 by filing this criminal writ petition. ( 2 ) AS per the facts available on record, the petitioner was interceptedon 19-5-1992 at I. G. I. Airport, New Delhi when he was leaving for Dubaiand as a result of search of his baggage, foreign currency equivalent tors. 9,19,058. 25 was recovered. On 20-5-1992 the residence of the petitionerwas also searched, but nothing incriminating was recovered. On 6-6-1992 acomplaint under Sections 132 and 135 (1) (a) of the Customs Act was filedagainst the petitioner and the petitioner was granted bail by the Additionalsessions Judge, New Delhi on 7-7-1992. Departmental proceedings werestarted against the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued on26-8-1992 and on 8-10-1992 this detention order was passed and in pursuanceof that detention order the petitioner was arrested on 4-11-1992. The detention order was served on the petitioner on 6-11-1992 when he was in jail andon 12-11-1992 he made a representation to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has challenged the said detention order on variousgrounds, but stress has been laid on the point that though the date of incidentwas 19-5-1992, but no detention order was passed till 8-10-1992. This longand undue delay in passing the detention order has snapped the nexus between the activity alleged and the activity sought to be curbed by passing theimpugned detention order and on this ground it has been alleged that the said detention order is illegal and void and the Detaining Authority had not applied its mind to the facts of the case before passing the said detention order. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the delay in passing thedetention order shows that the detention was unnecessary and the delay hasvitiated the same. It is submitted that there was non application of mind onthe part of the Detaining Authority. Learned Counsel further submitted thateven thereafter the order of detention was not served upon the petitioner till6-11-1992. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Division Bench ofthis Court in the case of Amit Sadruddin Khan v. Administrator, Unionterritory of Delhi and Ors. It is submitted that there was non application of mind onthe part of the Detaining Authority. Learned Counsel further submitted thateven thereafter the order of detention was not served upon the petitioner till6-11-1992. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Division Bench ofthis Court in the case of Amit Sadruddin Khan v. Administrator, Unionterritory of Delhi and Ors. Criminal Writ Petition No. 136 of 1991-decidedon 25-9-1991 in support of the contention that in such circumstances whenthe detention order has been passed after a long delay and the service wasalso effected after delay the detention order is liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the State countering the arguments of thelearned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a reasonable nexusbetween the prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention and in suchcircumstances the delay in passing the detention order has to be overlooked. In the counter affidavit filed by Mr. M. U. Siddiqui. Deputy Secretary (Home ). Govt. of National Capita] Territory of Delhi, it has been admittedthat the detention order was passed on 8-10-1992 and on the same day it wassent to the Govt. of Punjab for execution. The petitioner is a resident ofgurdaspur. The detention order and the accompanying documents weresent by the Govt. of Punjab to the concerned S. P. who. in turn. must havesent them to the S. H. O. of the concerned police station and; therefore, thistime has been consumed in serving the detention order. Moreover, less thanone month s time was taken for ultimate execution of the detention orderwhich cannot be termed as undue delay. Regarding the passing of thedetention order on 8-10-1993 it is submitted that the proposal form thecustoms Department was received on 10-7-1992 which was considered by the. the Screening Committee constituted for this purpose along with other caseson 18-8-1992. Up-to-date documents and relevant information were receivedfrom the Customs Department periodically and finally on 25-9-1992 thedocuments were scrutinised and put up on 28-9-1992. L. G. passed the orderon 30-9-1992. After fairing out and arranging the documents, thedetention order was issued on 8-10-1992 on receipt of the translationof the grounds of detention and detention order in the language known tothe detenu. Up-to-date documents and relevant information were receivedfrom the Customs Department periodically and finally on 25-9-1992 thedocuments were scrutinised and put up on 28-9-1992. L. G. passed the orderon 30-9-1992. After fairing out and arranging the documents, thedetention order was issued on 8-10-1992 on receipt of the translationof the grounds of detention and detention order in the language known tothe detenu. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel, the delay in passing the detention order and in its execution have been properly explained and there is nomerit in this point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 6 ) AS far as the facts are concerned, there is no dispute that thedetention order was passed on 8-10-1992 i. e. after about 5 months from thedate of the incident which allegedly took place on 19-5-1992. There is alsono dispute that the petitioner was granted bail by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge on 7-7-1992. Even after the release of the petitionerfrom jail on 7-7-1992. the Detaining Authority took 3 months in passingthe detention order which was served on the petitioner on 6-11-1992, i. e. after about 28 days. In this case it has to be seen whether the delay in passing of the detention order which is about 5 months from the date of the incident and after three months after the grant of bail by the Additionalsessions Judge has been properly explained or not. No doubt it is true thatif the respondent, i. e. the prosecution shows that there is a reasonable nexus between the prejudicial activity and the purpose detention, the delay in passing the detention order has to be overlooked. ( 7 ) IN the present case I find that there was no additional material before the Detaining Authority which necessitated the passing of the detentionorder than the one which was available on the date of the incident for whichcriminal proceedings are already initiated. In my view, the respondentshave not adequately explained the delay in passing the detention order. Ifthere was any apprehension in the mind of the Detaining Authority that thispetitioner would indulge in prejudicial activities even after this incident,proper steps would have been taken to pass the detention order immediatelythereafter preventing him from indulging in the said prejudicial activities. In my view, the respondentshave not adequately explained the delay in passing the detention order. Ifthere was any apprehension in the mind of the Detaining Authority that thispetitioner would indulge in prejudicial activities even after this incident,proper steps would have been taken to pass the detention order immediatelythereafter preventing him from indulging in the said prejudicial activities. Even after his release on bail on 7-7-1992 the detention order was not passedimmediately and rather the detention order was passed on 8-10-1992 afterthree months from the release of the petitioner on bail. It shows that thereis no nexus between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detentionand the delay in passing the detention order cannot be overlooked. ( 8 ) THE respondents have not adequately explained the delay in passing the detention order which has vitiated the impugned detention order. This detention order was passed mechanically without application of mindand without considering the fact that the passing of detention order at suchlater stage would serve no purpose when particularly there was no materialbefore the concerned authority that during the period of his release on bailon 7-7-1992 and until 8-10-1992 there was any instance of any prejudicialactivity involving this petitioner. ( 9 ) IN these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, Rule is madeabsolute and the impugned detention order dated 8-10-1992 is hereby quashed.