Mr. Arun Kumar, J. ( 1 ) BY this writ petition the petitioner has challenged theorder of detention dated 11/06/1993 bearing No. F. No. 673/64/93-CUS. VIIIpassed by Shri Mahender Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, respondentno. 2. -. ( 2 ). On 11/02/1993 the petitioner alongwith one Jagtar Singh and Amanpreet Singh was intercepted and taken into custody by the Custom Officers atsiliguri, near Jaigoan Border, Check Post of Bhutan Border. It is alleged that 697gms gold was recovered from the petitioner which was concealed in his rectum. Some recoveries of gold were also made from the other two persons who wereintercepted alongwith the petitioner. The petitioner denied his concern or anyrelation with the other persons. On 12/02/1993 statement of the petitionerwas recorded. It is alleged that again on 19/02/1993 statement of thepetitioner was recorded while in custody. The petitioner was granted bail on 1 5/04/1993. On 11/06/1993 the impugned detention order was passed againstthe petitioner. On 9/12/1993 the petitioner was shown to have beendetained by the Punjab Police (Patiala) in pursuance of the said detention order. The detention order was served on the petitioner on the said date while he was incustody. The petitioner was taken to Calcutta in custody. On 12/12/1993the petitioner was lodged in the Presidency Jail, Alipore, Calcutta. According to thepetitioner on 12. 12. 1993 though his signatures were obtained on various paperswhile in custody in Alipore Jail, the grounds of detention or the documents reliedupon were not served upon him. This allegation is of course denied by therespondents. According to the respondents the grounds of detention as well as thedocuments relied upon by the Detaining Authority were served on the petitioneron the said date. I need not enter into this controversy because the present petitionis being disposed of on another point raised on behalf of the petitioner. ( 3 ). During the course of arguments learned Counsel for the petitioner confinedhis challenge to the detention order to the ground of delay in execution of thedetention order. According to the learned Counsel the detention order was passedon 11. 6. 1993 but the same was served on the petitioner only on 9/12/1993. According to the petitioner there is no explanation for this inordinate delay inserving the detention order on the petitioner and, therefore, the link between thealleged prejudicial activity and the object sought to be achieved through detentiongot snapped. ( 4 ). 6. 1993 but the same was served on the petitioner only on 9/12/1993. According to the petitioner there is no explanation for this inordinate delay inserving the detention order on the petitioner and, therefore, the link between thealleged prejudicial activity and the object sought to be achieved through detentiongot snapped. ( 4 ). The relevant grounds taken by the petitioner in the petition in this behalf are:- (B) Because the petitioner says and submits that the impugned order ofdetention was passed on 1 1/06/1993 and thee same has been shownserved on the petitioner only on 9. 12. 1992. The petitioner appearedbefore the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri, wherethe case for the same incident was pending on 31. 8. 1993 as well as in themonth of October 1993 and his presence was marked in the Court. Theorder of detention was not executed on the petitioner in Siliguri inspiteof the fact that Customs Officers and the Assistant Collector ofcustoms, Siliguri, were authorised for execution of the detentionorder and a copy was sent by the Detaining Authority to them forexecution. The petitioner submits that there is no live and proximatelink between the incident mentioned in the grounds of detention andthe avowed purpose of detention, namely, preventing the petitionerfrom smuggling activities. The link has already been snapped. Thereis a long and unreasonable delay of about six months in execution ofthe detention order, makes the detention illegal and bad in law. Thesatisfaction of the Detaining Authority is also not genuine. (e) Because the petitioner submits that Section 4 of the Act envisages theexecution of the detention order in the same manner as provided forthe execution of warrant of arrest under the Code of Criminal Procedure. No action having been taken by the appropriate Government interms of Section 7 of the COFEPOSA shows the negligence of slip-shodmanner in which the liberty of the petitioner is being treated by theappropriate Government. No proceedings under Section 7 of the Acthas been initiated. The petitioner was taken into illegal custody by thepolice on 15. 11. 1993 and was kept in the Thana at Patiala withoutauthority of law by Shri Ajaib Singh, DSP City I, Thana Civil Lines andonly the detention order was served on 9. 12. 1993 and the petitionerwas shown detained while they have started their journey towardscalcutta Presidency Jail. There is along delay between 15th Novemberto 9/12/1993 in execution of the detention order. 1993 and was kept in the Thana at Patiala withoutauthority of law by Shri Ajaib Singh, DSP City I, Thana Civil Lines andonly the detention order was served on 9. 12. 1993 and the petitionerwas shown detained while they have started their journey towardscalcutta Presidency Jail. There is along delay between 15th Novemberto 9/12/1993 in execution of the detention order. Similarly,there is a six months delay in execution of the detention order inspiteof the fact that the petitioner was apprehended from his house and wasappearing before the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,makes the detention illegal and bad in law. The order of detention hasbeen passed as a punitive purpose and not as a preventive purpose. " ( 5 ). The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. In reply to the aforesaid grounds it has been submitted as under:- " (A) In reply to the contents of ground (a) it is submitted that there is nounexplained delay in issuance of the detention order. The incident isdated 5. 2. 93 and thereafter the investigations were carried on for sometime and the proposal was sent to the Ministry of Finance, Departmentof Revenue for issuance of detention order. The matter was placedbefore the members of the COFEPOSA Screening Committee on29. 4. 93, who cleared and approved the proposal and thereafter, thedetention order was issued on 11. 6. 93, after processing of the case. Thesame was sent on 11. 6. 93 itself to the Home Secretary, Government ofwest Bengal for execution, who in turn sent the orders to Governmentof Punjab for execution, since the petitioner was a resident of Patiala,punjab and had already obtained bail. The order of detention wasultimately served on the petitioner on 9. 12. 93 and Punjab being atroubled State some delay had occurred in serving the order ofdetention on the petitioner who was absconding but some time doeselapse when the order of detention is sent to the State Government forexecution. As such there is no delay in issuance and execution ofdetention order. The Detaining Authority has issued the detentionorder after satisfying itself of the need to issue the detention order inorder to prevent the petitioner from indulging in prejudicial activitiesin future. The order was not issued due to any kind of bias, malafideintention or as a punitive measure. Further the same was served on thepetitioner after observing all the procedural formalities. The Detaining Authority has issued the detentionorder after satisfying itself of the need to issue the detention order inorder to prevent the petitioner from indulging in prejudicial activitiesin future. The order was not issued due to any kind of bias, malafideintention or as a punitive measure. Further the same was served on thepetitioner after observing all the procedural formalities. (b) The contents of ground (b) are denied and the contents of ground (a)of the counter affidavit are reiterated. It is further submitted that theresponsibility for execution of the detention order prima facie lies withthe State Police and in the absence of any intimation and documents tothis effect, it is not possible to detain any person. (e) The contentions of ground (e) are denied. There is no negligence on thepart of the detaining and executing authority in the execution ofdetention order. The detention of the petitioner was carried out afterfollowing all the legal procedures and after carrying out properinvestigation and only after the formation of subjective satisfaction ofthe Detaining Authority. " ( 6 ). Having given my careful consideration to submissions made by the Counsel for the parties I am of the view that this petition is liable to succeed on the ground of relay in execution of the detention order alone and therefore I need not go into the other grounds taken on behalf of the petitioner in the writ petition. ( 7 ). Since the present case involves post detention challenge, the recent Fullbench decision of this Court in Mansukh Chhagan Lal Bhatt v. Union of India etc. ,crl. W. P. No. 222/94 decided on 20/10/1994 does not come in the way. Thefull Bench was solely concerned with the question as to whether in view of thejudgment of the Supreme Court inalka Subhash Gadia s case (The Additional Secretaryto the Govt. of India and Ors. v. Alka Subhash Gadia and Anr. ,jt 199 (1) SC 549) it wasopen to the Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chander v. U. O. I and Ors. , (1991)43 DLT 517 , to say that there could be any ground for challenging the detentionorder at pre-execution stage other than those enumerated in Alka Subhash Gadia scase. ( 8 ). The Full Bench has confined to consideration of the grounds of challenge toa detention order as enumerated in Alka Subhash Gadia s case - a case of predetention challenge. ( 8 ). The Full Bench has confined to consideration of the grounds of challenge toa detention order as enumerated in Alka Subhash Gadia s case - a case of predetention challenge. It has been reiterated that the five grounds for challengementioned in the said Supreme Court decision are the only grounds on which adetention order can be challenged at the pre-execution stage. Though the Fullbench also considered the question of delay in serving the detention order, yet thesaid question was considered only in the light of grounds Nos. 3 and 4 containedin Alka Gadia s case and nothing more. In fact the cases of post detention challengeto a detention order on account of delay in execution thereof were cited before thefull Bench. These cases were noted but they were distinguished on the ground thatthey were post detention cases. It was also noted that in these cases the Court wasnot examining the exceptions contained in Alka Gadia s case and, therefore, thesecases were different. ( 9 ). The first and foremost consideration for the present purpose is the object ofthe Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. This was "an Act to provide for preventive detention in certain cases for purposesof conservation and augmentation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities and for matters connected therewith". Thus the object of the Act ispreventive rather than punitive detention. An order under the Act is passed toprevent a person from indulging in smuggling activities which affect the conservation and augmentation of foreign exchange in the country. It was observed by thesupreme Court in P. U. lqbal v. Union of India and Ors. , 1992 SCC (Crl.) 184, that asan order of detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive action but apreventive action, the avowed object of which being to prevent the anti-social andsubversive elements from imperiling the welfare of the country or the security ofthe nation or from disturbing the public tranquility or from indulging in smugglingactivities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropicsubstances etc. As it is borne out from the Preamble of the COFEPOSA Act, underthe provisions of which the present detention order has been passed, detentionorder under this Act is made with an object of preventing the "violations of foreignexchange regulations and smuggling activities which are having an increasinglydeleterious effect on the national economy" and thereby posing "a serious effect onthe security of the country". Again it was noted in the said judgment that"preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is notto punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it andto prevent him from doing". (Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Admn. , 1982 (2) SCC 403 .) ( 10 ). So far as the punishment for the crime of the petitioner is concerned he isfacing trial separately in a Court of competent jurisdiction. The detention orderwas passed in addition only to prevent him from indulging in such anti-social andanti-national acts. Therefore, it becomes essential, rather imperative for the authorities responsible for execution of the order to serve the same on the personsought to be detained as soon as possible. The delay in serving the order may defeatthe very object for which the detention order is passed. The authorities have to bevigilant and "keep their eyes skinned" but not to turn a blind eye in securing thedetenu and executing the detention order, because any indifferent attitude on thepart of the Detaining Authority or executing authority will defeat the very purposeof the preventive action and turn the detention order as a dead letter and frustratethe entire proceedings. (P. U. lqbal supra) ( 11 ). The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to severaljudgments of the Supreme Court and this Court wherein the detention orders werequashed on the ground of delay in execution thereof. The law is settled. Of coursethe question of delay in execution of a detention order will depend on the facts andcircumstances of each case. In the present case a reference to the counter affidavitof the respondents (relevant paras already quoted herein before) shows that thedetention order was sent by the Detaining Authority to the Home secretary, Govt. of West Bengal for execution on 11/06/1993, i. e. the date of passing of the orderitself. The West Bengal authorities sent the order to Punjab for execution since thepetitioner was a resident of Patiala, Punjab and was already on bail. of West Bengal for execution on 11/06/1993, i. e. the date of passing of the orderitself. The West Bengal authorities sent the order to Punjab for execution since thepetitioner was a resident of Patiala, Punjab and was already on bail. The counteraffidavit further goes on to say that the order of detention was ultimately served onthe petitioner on 9/12/1993 and Punjab being a troubled State some delayhad occurred in serving the order of detention on the petitioner who was absconding when the order of detention was sent to the Govt. for execution. This is totallyvague averment. No affidavits of the executing agencies have been filed to showwhat efforts they made in this connection. The petitioner has specifically averredin ground-B that he had appeared in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri where the case relating to the same incident was pending on 31. 8. 1993as well as in the month of October 1993 and his presence is recorded in Courtrecord. This assertion has not been controverted in the counter affidavit. Thisshows that at least on the said two occasions the petitioner had appeared in Courtand still there is no explanation for not serving the detention order on him on thesaid occasions. ( 12 ). Further respondents 1 and 2 have tried to get away from their responsibil-ity by staling in their reply to ground B that " the responsibility for execution of thedetention order prima facie lies with the State police and in the absence of anyintimation and. documents to this effect, it is not possible to detain any person". This further shows the casual approach with which the respondents have dealtwith the matter. The least one could expect was an affidavit of the person entrustedwith the task of execution of the detention order. The averment that Punjab was adisturbed State at the relevant time is not enough. In Shafiq Ahmed v. Districtmagistrate, Meerut and Ors. , JT 1989 (3) SC 659, to explain the delay in execution ofthe detention order it was pleaded that from May to September 1988 the entirepolice force was extremely busy in controlling the law and order situation. Hence,if the law and order was threatened and prejudiced, it was not the conduct of thepetitioner but because of the inadequacy or inability of the police force of Meerutcity to control the situation. Therefore, the fact is that there was delay inexecutionwhich remains unexplained. Hence,if the law and order was threatened and prejudiced, it was not the conduct of thepetitioner but because of the inadequacy or inability of the police force of Meerutcity to control the situation. Therefore, the fact is that there was delay inexecutionwhich remains unexplained. If the petitioner/detenu can be held responsible fordelay in execution of the detention order, it may be an explanation worth consideration but if the delay is on account of facts other than the conduct of the petitioner,it is a different story and has to be viewed differently. In cases where it has beenfound that the detenu was absconding and all efforts were made to locate him byway of surveillance at his residence or any other ways, delay in execution was notheld to be fatal. ( 13 ). Why should delay in execution of a detention order be fatal to thedetention order? The Supreme Court has repeatedly observed in this behalf thatthere must be live and proximate link between the grounds of detention allegedby the Detaining Authority and the prejudicial activity and in appropriate cases itis possible to assume that the link is snapped if there is a long and unexplaineddelay between the date of the order of detention and the arrest of the detenu. Inbhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of T. M. and Anr, (1979) 2 S. C. R. 633 it wasobserved:- "it is true that the purpose of detention under the COFFEPOSA is not punitivebut preventive. The purpose is to prevent organised smuggling activities andto conserve and augment Foreign Exchange. It is true that the maximumperiod for which a person may be detained under the COFEPOSA is one year. It is further true that there must be a live and proximate link between thegrounds of detention alleged by the Detaining Authority and the avowedpurpose of detention namely the prevention of smuggling activities. We mayin appropriate cases assume that the link is snapped if there is a long andunexplained delay between the date of the order of detention and the arrestof the detenu. " ( 13 ). Thus if there is unreasonable delay between the date of the order ofdetention and the date of arrest of detenu, such delay unless satisfactorily explained, throws a considerable doubt on the reasonable subjective satisfaction ofthe Detaining Authority in passing the detention order and consequently rendersthe detention order bad and void. " ( 13 ). Thus if there is unreasonable delay between the date of the order ofdetention and the date of arrest of detenu, such delay unless satisfactorily explained, throws a considerable doubt on the reasonable subjective satisfaction ofthe Detaining Authority in passing the detention order and consequently rendersthe detention order bad and void. Live and proximate link between the grounds ofdetention and the avowed purpose of detention is essential. In appropriate casesit is possible to assume that the link is snapped if there is a long and unexplaineddelay between the date of the order of detention and the arrest of the detenu. In the present case as already noticed the respondents have failed to satisfactorily explain the delay. The result is that the petition succeeds. Rule is madeabsolute. The impugned detention order dated 11/06/1993 bearing No. F. No. 673/64/93-CUS. VIII passed by Shri Mahender Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, respondent No. 2 is quashed. The petitioner is ordered to be set at liberty unless required in connection with any other case.