JUDGMENT 1. - By this habeas corpus petition, the detenu has challenged the detention order dated 19.5.1992 (Ann. 1) and prayed that the detention order Ann. 1 be quashed and detenu Jalam Singh be released. The detenu Jalam Singh is a resident of Village Khabdala, Tehsil Shiv, District Banner. 2. On 2.10.91, a Jonga bearing registration No. RJ-19C- 0841 was stopped by Customs Authorities near the outskirts of Shiv township. Jonga was at that time being driven by one Khushal Singh. The vehicle was taken to police station and on search, 531 ingots of silver weighing about 590 kgs. was found. The Customs Authorities suspected that it was smuggled silver and confiscated the same U/s. Ill of the Customs Act, 1962. The detenu claimed that he has been falsely implicated by one Doongar Singh and Imam Khan, who are indulged in the smuggling activities. The concerned Jonga jeep was driven by one Khushal Singh, who has made false statement against detenu. Similarly, one Sawai Singh son of Khem Singh also gave statement under section 108 of the Customs Act implicating the detenu. Consequently, the detenu was arrested under section 135 of the Customs Act and on his arrest, his false statement has been recorded wherein he had allegedly confessed his part in smuggling the silver. On arrest of Khushal Singh, driver of detenu, they applied for bail. The bail application was rejected. The third accused Sawai Singh was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. On release of Jalam Singh, Sawai Singh has sent a letter to Customs Collector stating therein that detenu (Jalam Singh) has nothing to do with the alleged smuggling of silver. He had not given any statement under section 108 of the Customs Act. He had no connection or concern with the Jonga Jeep No. RJ-19-C- 0841. On 14.8.94, the detenu was admitted in the Trinity Hospital, Jodhpur. He remained there upto 6.9.94. During his stay in the hospital, he came to know about the impugned detention order which had been passed against him and on 6.9.94, he sent a telegram to Chairman, Advisory Board about his intention to surrender before the Customs Department at Jodhpur on 7.9.94. On that date, he has surrendered before the Customs Authorities. 3. He has challenged the detention order on the ground that there was no material to pass detention order against him. On that date, he has surrendered before the Customs Authorities. 3. He has challenged the detention order on the ground that there was no material to pass detention order against him. There is no recovery of smuggled goods or any contraband articles from the house of detenu. 4. The statement of Khushal Singh recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act was retracted by Khushal Singh. The grounds of detention are vague. 5. The impugned seizure was effected on 2.10.91 and detention order has been passed on 19.5.92. The delay is more than six months, therefore, the detention order has no nexus with the seizure. The detention order was passed on 19.5.92 and the same was served on 7.9.94 i.e. after 27 months. The copy of bail application and order on that application has not been supplied to the detenu along with the detention order. 6. The detention order of Khushal Singh has already been set aside by this Court and detention order of Sawai Singh has been set aside by the Advisory Board itself. 7. The perusal of grounds of appeal show that detention order Ann. 1 has been passed by the detaining authority only on the ground that on 2.10.91, silver weighing about 590 kgs. was smuggled from Pakistan to India in Jonga Jeep bearing No. RJ-19-C-84T and the detenu is the main person behind this smuggling activity. The statement of Khushal Singh, who was driving the jeep at the time of seizure of silver, recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act is the main basis for connecting the detenu with the seized silver. Though the house of the detenu was searched, no contraband articles were found. 8. Mr. Bajwa, learned counsel for the detenu has submitted that the detaining authority has not applied his mind as the entire material relied upon has not been placed before the detaining authority. This allegation of the detenu has been denied in reply filed by respondents. Whether all the material was placed before the detaining authority or not is a question of fact. In absence of positive evidence, we do not agree with the arguments of Mr. Bajwa that all material on which the reliance has been placed was not before the detaining authority at the time of his subjective satisfaction. Therefore, we find no force in the submission of Mr. Bajwa in this regard. 9. Mr. In absence of positive evidence, we do not agree with the arguments of Mr. Bajwa that all material on which the reliance has been placed was not before the detaining authority at the time of his subjective satisfaction. Therefore, we find no force in the submission of Mr. Bajwa in this regard. 9. Mr. Bajwa has next submitted that the incident took place on 2.10.91 but detention order Ann. 1 has been passed on 19.5.92, that means, virtually more than six months have been taken in passing the detention order. 10. The issue regarding delay in passing the order has been considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Anand Prakash v. State of U.R and Others (1990) 1 SCC 291 , and in para 12 of the judgment, it has been observed as under: "The theft of the wire was on February 14, 1989 and the FIR was registered on February 15, 1989. On that day itself as seen from the record Jagdish, Santosh and Munshi Sharma were shown as accused on the basis of some information. The house of Jagdish was raided on March 3,1989 and on the same day the factory of the detenu was raided and 20 kg of melted wire was recovered from Munshi Sharma but no action was taken till May 2, 1989 against the detenu. On being arrested on May 3, 1989 the detenu moved a bail application and the detention order itself was made on May 3, 1989. Thought bail was granted, in view of the detention order he could not be released from jail. In spite of the fact that the recovery statement itself was made as early as on March 3, 1989 no action was taken till May 3,1989. Nothing more is stated in the detention order. The delay has also not been satisfactorily explained in the counter statement of the respondents. The ground instance, therefore, could not be a proximate cause for a sudden decision to take action under the National Security Act and this also vitiates the order." In Issac Babu v. Union of India & another (1990) 4 SCC 135 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed in para 2 of the judgment as under: "We do not think this is a satisfactory explanation. It was not incumbent on the authorities to wait till the issue of the show cause notice. It was not incumbent on the authorities to wait till the issue of the show cause notice. The need to issue a show cause notice within 6 months has nothing to do with the processing of the detention papers. In our view, therefore, this explanation is far from satisfactory" 11. In the case in hand, in reply of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in para 9(J), it has been stated that the period of six months in passing the detention order is procedural one because proposal for detention under Cofeposa moves through various stages. In reply of respondent No. 1, in para 9(G), it has been stated that the seizure was effected on 2.10.91 and detention order was passed on 19.5.92. The proposal for detaining the detenu was received by the State Government on 21.12.1991. The meeting of screening committee was scheduled to be held on 31.12.1991, but Special Secretary Home was not available, therefore, it was postponed to 13.1.1992. No step has been taken on 13.1.92 as Home Secretary was on leave. Then the matter was postponed to 31.1.92 on that day also, the matter was not taken and postponed to 19.2.92. On this date, the I.G.P., CID (Crimes) did not attend the meeting, therefore, it was again postponed to 7.3.92. On that date, the screening committee has recommended his detention. Not only that even after recommendation of the screening committee, the detention order was passed in May 1992, that means, again for passing the formal order two months have been taken. Therefore, from the facts given above, it is apparent that the detaining authority has no genuine satisfaction in detention of the detenu. That is apparent how the proposal for detention has been taken in casual manner at all the levels before passing the detention order. 12. From para 11 of the grounds of detention (Ann. 2), it further reveals that Shri Arun Kumar, Home Secretary has mentioned his own satisfaction and not the satisfaction of detaining authority and it is an admitted case of the respondents that he is not the detaining authority. No subjective satisfaction has been recorded by the detaining authority. This further shows that the impugned order has been passed in a casual and cursory manner by the detaining authority. 13. Mr. Bajwa next argued that the detention order was passed on 19.5.92 but the arrest has been effected on 7.9.94. No subjective satisfaction has been recorded by the detaining authority. This further shows that the impugned order has been passed in a casual and cursory manner by the detaining authority. 13. Mr. Bajwa next argued that the detention order was passed on 19.5.92 but the arrest has been effected on 7.9.94. Whether some genuine efforts have been made for effecting the arrest of detenu ? Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 replied in para 7 of the reply which reads as under : "That regular efforts have been made to apprehend the detenu. List of such efforts (date wise) is given below : 9.6.92, 23.6.92, 28.8.92, 13.10.92, 21.11.92, 31.12.92, 18.12.92, 10.2.93, 17.3.93, 20.4.93, 12.7.93, 9.9.93, 6.10.93, 20.10.93, 3.11.93 11.12.93, 15.12.93, 22.12.93, 15.1.94, 10.2.94, 18.2.94, 6.3.94, 24.3.94, 14.4.94, 28.4.94, 12.5.94, 12.7.94, 21.7.94, 27.7.94.3.8.94, 29.8.94, 7.9.94." 14. Though various dates have been given but what efforts have been made and why they failed to arrest the detenu immediately after the order, nothing has been said. In reply of respondent No. 1, it has been stated that the detenu was absconded, therefore, the arrest was not effected immediately. In T.V. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala and others ( AIR 1990 SC 225 ) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed in para 12 of the judgment as under : "When there is unsatisfactory and unexplained delay between the date of order of detention and the date of securing the arrest of the detenu, such a delay would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority leading to a legitimate inference that the detaining authority was not really and genuinely satisfied as regards the necessity for detaining the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner." 15. Some details have been given though the heading is affidavit but neither the deponent has said these facts on oath nor on solemn affirmation. Therefore, it cannot be treated as affidavit. In para 7, when no exact efforts have been explained, mere dates or saying that he was absconding is not enough to hold that the delay was reasonable. Even some facts given under the signature of Shushil Kumar Pareek, deponent is of no help as he is not one of the officers who made the efforts. He is only a Superintendent in Preventive Department. Even some facts given under the signature of Shushil Kumar Pareek, deponent is of no help as he is not one of the officers who made the efforts. He is only a Superintendent in Preventive Department. Nowhere he said that he was one of the officer who raided the house of the detenu time and again and even in these details, it is only clarified that on so and so dates, the raid party raided and the detenu was not found at his residence. They enquired from the members of family of detenu, their reply was that he is out of station for the last 3-4 months. This shows how lightly they have taken the arrest of a smuggler. Nothing has been said that before raid, they had a secret information about his whereabouts. If simply they are touching the residence of detenue time and again, it cannot be said to be a genuine effort by the concerned authorities to affect his arrest. That casts a serious doubt on the efforts of the concerned authorities in their efforts to arrest the detenu. On the contrary, the detenue himself has surrendered and informed the Chairman of Customs Board. When they are not serious and they have no genuine intention to detain the detenu, the detention order should be quashed. 16. It is also pointed out that of the other two co-accused viz. Sawai Singh and Khushal Singh who have taken part in the smuggling of seized silver, the detention order of Khushal Singh has been set aside by this Court and detention order of co-accused Sawai Singh has been set aside by the Advisory Board itself.In view of the facts, there is no justification to detain the detenu Jalam Singh. Therefore, we quash the detention order dated 19.5.92 (Ann. 1) and direct the respondents to release the detenu forthwith, if not required in any other case. *******