M. G. MUKHERJI, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for Habeas Corpus his been filed by Slit. Manju Jalan W/o Asoke Kumar Jalan Pappu, the detenu, impugning an order of detention passed under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 bearing order No. F. 673/ 160/94. Cus. VIII dated 22nd of September, 1994 issued by Shri K. L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi whereby the detenu has been detained in the Presidency Jail at Alipore, Calcutta. ( 2 ) IT has been submitted by the petitioner that the house of the detenu was searched by the Enforcement Directorate Officials in connection with his Telcum Powder business. Certain documents were seized from his house. It was a sequel to the recovery of certain amount of money from one Khokan Saha and Biswanath Sarkar at Madhu Milan Guest House in Burrabazar on 23-2- 1994. An application for anticipatory bail was moved by the detenu pursuant to which a Division Bench of this Court granted him anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions. The detenu was thereafter interrogated in the Enforcement Directorate Office on April 17, 18, 20, 22, 25, 27 and 29, 1994. He was threatened by the Enforcement Directorate Officials of being implicated in criminal cases unless he gave voluntary statement of his own as directed by the said Officials. On 1st May, 1994 the Enforcement Directorate Officials visited his house and searched for him and searched also the house of one Sri Nitya Majumdar and others and on 2. 5. 1994 five persons including Sri Nitya Majumdar and Dipak Devnath and others, who were said to be involved in Foreign Exchange dealings in an unauthorised manner, were produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Even in May, 1994 the detenu was threatened with implication by the Enforcement Directorate Officials which led him to make a representation to the Deputy Director and ultimately on 10th of May, 1994 there was a statement taken by force by the Enforcement Directorate Officials. A First Information Report was lodged at Taltala Police Station in this regard. On 20th of May, 1994 a notice was issued by the Division Bench for contempt. Ultimately, on 1. 10. A First Information Report was lodged at Taltala Police Station in this regard. On 20th of May, 1994 a notice was issued by the Division Bench for contempt. Ultimately, on 1. 10. 94 the detenu was arrested when he went to the Enforcement Directorate Office of his own. ( 3 ) MR. Asoke Sen, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the detenu contended before us with reference to the grounds of detention that the incident referred to in the said grounds were of the date 23rd of February, 1994 when a sum of Rs. four lakhs was seized along with certain documents from the room occupied by Sri Khokan Saha and Sri Biswanath Sarkar at Madhu Milan Guest House at Burrabazar. This incident was taken along with the statement alleged to have been given by Khokan Saha, Biswanath Sarkar, the detenu and his brother Sri. Krishan Kumari Jalan on different dates. The statements allegedly obtained from the detenu and his brother were taken on 9th and 10th of May, 1994. There was thus a gap of over four months in between the statements made by different persons and the order of detention. If the gap is taken from the date of first incident there would be also a gap of nearly seven months between the first incident and the order of detention. The second incident mentioned in the grounds is stated to have taken place on 1st of May, 1994. The statements of the detenu and his brother were allegedly obtained on 9th and 10th May, 1994 and those of Nitya Majumdar and Dipak Debnath who were arrested from Sal t Lake were obtained on 1st and 2nd May, 1994. There was thus a gap of 4 months and several days from 1st of May, 1994. There is no explanation for the delay given by the Detaining Authority except what has been given out at page 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition and also at pages 20 and 23 of the affidavit-in- opposition. It has been given out that the proposal for making the order of detention was received by the Enforcement Directorate Head Quarters at New Delhi on 13th June, 1994. On 11th July, 1994 the proposal was sent to the Ministry of Finance by the Head Qaurters office of the Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi. On 12th August, 1994 the proposal was placed before the Screening Committee. On 11th July, 1994 the proposal was sent to the Ministry of Finance by the Head Qaurters office of the Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi. On 12th August, 1994 the proposal was placed before the Screening Committee. On 22nd September, 1994 the detention order was issued by the Detaining Authority and on 30th September, 1994 the order of detention was received at Calcutta Office of the Enforcement Directorate through the Head Quarters Office at New Delhi Enforcement Directorate. Q 2nd October, 1994 the detention order was served on the detenu and he was detained in Presidency Jail at Alipore, Calcutta. On 4th October 1994 the grounds of detention as also the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority were served on the detenu by the Jail Authorities. On 10th October, 1994 the Ministry of Finance, New Delhi forwarded the case before the Advisory Board, New Delhi. The detenu also made a representation to the Joint Secretary to the Government of India through the Superintendent of Presidency Jail under his letter dated October 15/17, 1994 making complaint inter alia that some of the documents were not legible enough and page No. 17 of the document allegedly relied upon by the Detaining Authority was not in a language known to the detenu and no translation thereof was also provided to him. The detenu requested for legible copies and translation of the documents pointed out in his representation. Although all the documents which are served with the grounds of detention, according to the respondents, were legible, yet as a measure of abundant caution another set of documents including the English translation of page 17 of the earlier document referred to, was sent to the Jail Authority on 25. 10. 1994 for service on the detenu. On 26. 10. 1994 the Jail Authority attempted to serve the said documents but the detenu declined to accept the same on some plea or other. However, ultimately he accepted the documents which he refused on the day earlier. On 31. 10. 1994 the Detaining Authority under letter No. F. 686/253/94-Cus. VIII dated 31. 1 0. 1994 replied to the representation of the detenu through the Superintendent, Presidency Jail. On 9. 10. 1994 the Finance Minister, New Delhi fixed the date of hearing the detenu on 5. 12. 1994 at the Customs House, Calcutta. On 31. 10. 1994 the Detaining Authority under letter No. F. 686/253/94-Cus. VIII dated 31. 1 0. 1994 replied to the representation of the detenu through the Superintendent, Presidency Jail. On 9. 10. 1994 the Finance Minister, New Delhi fixed the date of hearing the detenu on 5. 12. 1994 at the Customs House, Calcutta. ( 4 ) IT has been submitted by the respondents that the delay has thus been sufficiently explained and there has already been statutory compliance of all the statutory formalities as enjoined in law. ( 5 ) IT was argued by the Asoke Sen, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner with reference to several reported decisions that there is an unexplained delay and that itself would be fatal and the detenu would be entitled to have the order of detention set aside on that ground alone. ( 6 ) WITH regard to the decision in the case of Pradeep Patukar v. S. Ramamurthy and Ors. , where there was an unexplained delay in issuing the detention order passed after 5 months and 8 days from the date of registration of the last case and more than 4 months from submission of the proposal and there was a statement of witnesses obtained after the detenu got bail in all these cases, the detention order was quashed by the Supreme Court. In the case of Anand Prakash v. State of U. P. and Ors. , there was also a delay of 2-1/2 months from the incident relied upon in the order of detention. There the detention appeared to supplant criminal prosecution and the order of detention was quashed. It was held in this case that the grounds of detention were not proximate and that itself vitiated the order of detention. In the case of N. K. Bapna v. Union of India3, there was a delay of months from the incident relied upon in making the order, apart from the delay involved in executing the order of detention and Division Bench of our Court quashed the order of detention and held that was no live-link between the incident referred to in the order of detention and the order of detention itself. In the case of Inshan Ali v. Supdt. Central Prison and 2 Ors. , the Court also quashed the order of detention since there was a delay of 5 months in passing the order of detention. In the case of Inshan Ali v. Supdt. Central Prison and 2 Ors. , the Court also quashed the order of detention since there was a delay of 5 months in passing the order of detention. A similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in 1994 Cr. L. J. 291 where there was a delay of 2 months between the receipt of the proposal for detention and the passing of the order of detention. In the case of Smt. Gurmit Kaur v. Union of India and Ors. , the Delhi High Court also took a similar view that where there was a delay of 3 months in passing the order of detention after the proposal had been received the order of detention was struck down as unsustainable in law. ( 7 ) MR. P. R. Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents cited before us the decision in the case of Asoke Narayan v. Union of India and Ors. , to contend before us the proposition that if the delay in passing of the order of detention is not occasioned by any laxity but is the result of full and detailed consideration of facts and circumstances of the case by various departments involved and the detention order is passed after full application of mind, despite the delay, the detention order is valid. ( 8 ) IT is ultimately a question of satisfaction of the court while examining the matter thoroughly as to whether the Detaining Authority has explained the delay. Unfortunately, we do not find the instant case to be one where the respondents have been able to sufficiently explain the delay in arriving at a subjective satisfaction is such a belated manner over the incident which took place much earlier. ( 9 ) MR. Sen further contended before us on the question of non-consideration of the retraction of the statements of the makers thereof on which reliance had been placed in the grounds of detention. Mr. ( 9 ) MR. Sen further contended before us on the question of non-consideration of the retraction of the statements of the makers thereof on which reliance had been placed in the grounds of detention. Mr. Sen contended that the order of detention had been made without considering the retractions of the said statements made by Khokan Saha, Biswanath Sarkar, Sanjeev Sureka, Ajay Saraogi, Salil Kumar Saha, Nitya Majumdar and Dipak Debnath contending further that all such statements were initially taken by threat or by force or by actual physical violence by the Enforcement Officers and since the retraction thereof took place later on, the very fact that they were so retracted were not placed before the Detaining Authority. In this context Mr. Sen cited before us the decision in the case of Ashadevi v. K. Shivaraj and Anr. , reported in AIR 1979 SC 447 for the proposition that material or vital facts likely to influence the mind of authority if found not considered, the Court can reach an inference that the subjective satisfaction of the authority is vitiated, which consequently renders the detention order invalid. ( 10 ) WE need not go into this question at all, since on the first question of delay we are convinced that there is absence of any live-link between the incident as referred to in the order of detention and the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority as arrived at in the order of detention itself. The explanation as sought to be given by the respondents does not sufficiently convince us that it took the, respondents such inordinately long time to verify the factual details of such a bundle of facts comprising the subject matter of detention. ( 11 ) IN the result, we hold that the order of detention is liable to be struck down as unsustainable in law. The order of detention bearing No. F. 673/160/94-Cus. VIII dated 22nd of September, 1994 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 1974 directing the detention of the detenu Asoke Kumar Jalan @ Pappu be quashed and the respondents are directed to set at liberty the said detenu Asoke Kumar Jalan Pappu forthwith. Mr. K. C. Agarwal CJ.- I agree. Petition allowed.