Anil Dev Singh ( 1 ) THIS writ petition calls in question an orderof detention dated 18/12/1991 made by the Joint Secretary to thegovernment of India, respondent No. 2, under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short "cofeposa") directing the detention of the petitioner witha view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. ( 2 ) THE facts arising from the grounds of detention are :shri Waryam Singh resident of M-191, Greater Kailash New Delhiwas indulging in illegal sale and purchase of foreign exchange and compensatory payments in colloboration with Shri Ravinder Pa! Singh Sethi residentof 20/8 Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. On 16/08/1991 during surveillanceof the letter s residence. Shri Waryam Singh was seen boarding Car No. DL3cb 0397. This car was intercepted on Shanker Road and on search of theperson of Shri Waryam Singh and the car the following recoveres andseizures were made:1. Rupees 3000. 002. US $18,3. UAE Dirham 60. 4. Saudi Rial 1005. Afganill906. Singapore S. 77. Documents. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, as a follow up action, certain properties were searchedand recovery of foreign currencies and documents were effected. ( 4 ) STATEMENT of Shri Waryam Singh was also recorded under Section40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. in which he is alleged tohave admitted that he transferred US dollars 4,35,1350 abroad and receivedrs. 1,53,53. 660. 00in lieu thereof from different parties. From his statementit also appears that the petitioner and various other persons allegedlyacted as conduits for transfer of foreign currency at the instance ofshri Waryam Singh and Shri Sethi. The petitioner is said to have transferredforeign exchange worth US $ 4. 5 lakhs abroad. In this process the petitionerallegedly earned a profit of Rs. 70 to 80 thousand in a period of one year. ( 5 ) ON 17/08/1991 the petitioner was arrested under Section 45of the Foreign Exchange and Regulation Act. On 21/10/1991 thepetitioner was released on bail. Thereafter on 18/12/1991 the detention order was made against the petitioner but the same was executed on 29/01/1992 after about a period of one year. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a considerable delay in execution of the detention order, which shows that thedetaining Authority was not genuinely satisfied about the activities of thepetitioner which needed to be curbed. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a considerable delay in execution of the detention order, which shows that thedetaining Authority was not genuinely satisfied about the activities of thepetitioner which needed to be curbed. His submission is that in case thepetitioner was really indulging in the aforesaid activities, the order of detention would have been executed immediately as the whole object of the saidorder was to prevent the prejudicial activities of the petitioner which werenot conducive to the augmentation of foreign exchange. ( 7 ) NO one has appeared on behalf of the respondents even today. The matter came up for hearing on 13/09/1993 but the Counsel forthe respondents did not appear and due his absence the matter was allowedto stand over for the day Today again, when the matter was called no oneappeared for the respondents. After waiting in vain for the Counsel for therespondents, matter is now being taken up for hearing at 3. 45 p. m. , at thefag end of the day as in the circumstances I feel I have no choice but toproceed with the matter in absence of the Counsel for the respondent. ( 8 ) IN the petition it is specifically alleged that though the detentionorder was passed on 18/02/1992 yet the same was not executed till 29/01/1993. It is further averred therein that when the petitioner cameto know about the making of the said detention order the voluntarily surrendered on 29/01/1993. It is also stated that "long and undue delay inexecution of the order of detention casts doubt on the genuineness of thedetaining Authority to detain the petitioner preventively". ( 9 ) IN reply to these averments of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 inhis counter-affidavit has stated as follows : "as regards Ground I of the petition, it is submitted that it isabsolutely wrong that the detenu was available at the given address. The detention order was issued on 18/12/1991 and sincethen concerted efforts were made to execute the order on the detenubut in vain. All out efforts were made to execute the order butthe detenu was never available. Ultimately, an order undersection 7 (1) (b) of the Act was issued by the Ministry declaring himabsconder and also directing the petitioner appear before the policeauthorities. The order was finally executed on 29/01/1993when the detenu/petitioner surrendered himself. Thus, the allegation made therein is denied. All out efforts were made to execute the order butthe detenu was never available. Ultimately, an order undersection 7 (1) (b) of the Act was issued by the Ministry declaring himabsconder and also directing the petitioner appear before the policeauthorities. The order was finally executed on 29/01/1993when the detenu/petitioner surrendered himself. Thus, the allegation made therein is denied. The order is legal and valid". ( 10 ) THE aforesaid reply does not disclose as to what effective stepswere taken to execute the order of detention. There is nothing on recordto show that any enquiry was made about the whereabouts of the petitionerwhich officer was deputed to execute the order is also not disclosed. Thereply is vague and unconvincing. I am not satisfied with the explanationrendered by respondent No. 2 for the delay in the execution of the order ofdetention. It appears that there was no actual need to detain the petitioner. In the circumstances it can be assumed that respondent No. 2 failed to applyhis mind and did not arrive at a real and genuine subjective satisfactionabout the necessity of passing the detention order with a view to preventingthe petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the augmentation offoreign exchange. ( 11 ) SK. Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974sc 2353 ithas been held as under : ". . . IF there is any delay in arresting the detenu pursuant to theorder of detention which is prima facie unreasonable, the State mustgive reasons explaining the delay. Vide Sk. Serajul v. State of Westbengal W. P. , 2000 of 1973, decided on 9/09/1974. Sincein the present case no explanation for the delay has been given inthe affidavit-in reply filed by the District Magistrate, we are not atall satisfied that the District Magistrate applied his mind and arrivedat a real and genuine subjective satisfaction that it was necessary todetain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from actingin a prejudicial manner". ( 12 ) TO the similar effect are the following two decisions of thesupreme Court and this Court :-1. Shafiq Ahmad v. District Magistrate, Meerut and Others JT1989 (3) SC 659. 2. Subash Chander v. Union of India and Others, 1991 (1) Crimes745. ( 12 ) TO the similar effect are the following two decisions of thesupreme Court and this Court :-1. Shafiq Ahmad v. District Magistrate, Meerut and Others JT1989 (3) SC 659. 2. Subash Chander v. Union of India and Others, 1991 (1) Crimes745. ( 13 ) THE whole object and purpose of detaining a person under thepreventive laws is to prevent him from indulging in activities which are needed to be curbed in the interests of the State. In case the detenu is left freefor a considerable period of time even after making an order of detention against him, then it cannot be legitimately claimed that the detention order was made as there was real and imminent danger of the detenucontinuing with the prejudicial activities of in future. Besides in a case of adelay in executing the order of detention live link or proximate connectionbetween the prejudicial activities of the detenu and the detention order snaps. Since there is an unexplained and an unreasonable delay of about one year inexecuting the order of detention,it casts considerable doubt on the genuinenessof the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority in passingthe impugned detention order. As the delay in executing the order of detention has not been properly and satisfactorily explained in the counter-affidavitof respondent No. 2, I have no hesitation in holding that the detention orderstands vitiated. ( 14 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner points out that the mainperson namely, Shri Waryam Singh, who was running the whole show ofhawala business, has already been released by the State on the advice of theadvisory Board. He submits that in view of this fact the detention order ofthe petitioner also stands vitiated. In support of his submission, he also reliesupon a decision of this Court in Prem Singh v. The Administrator of thenational Capital Territory of Delhi, (Cr. W. No. 637 of 1992 rendered on 16/02/1993 ). Learned Counsel for the petitioner seems to becorrect. Since Shri Waryam Singh the prime actor has been releasedby the State on the recommendation of the Advisory Board, there is hardlyany justification in detaining the petitioner whose position does not appearto be worse than that of Shri Waryam Singh. W. No. 637 of 1992 rendered on 16/02/1993 ). Learned Counsel for the petitioner seems to becorrect. Since Shri Waryam Singh the prime actor has been releasedby the State on the recommendation of the Advisory Board, there is hardlyany justification in detaining the petitioner whose position does not appearto be worse than that of Shri Waryam Singh. ( 15 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation in hold-ding that the order of detention is vitiated because of the delay in executingthe same and also because of the decision Of the Advisory Board to let offshri Waryam Singh for whom the petitioner is alleged to have been working. ( 16 ) ACCORDINGLY, the rule is made absolute. The petition succeeds and the order of detention is quashed. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case.