JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:--- The petitioner is the sister of the detenu Parag Shashikant Todkari against whom the order of detention was passed by the first respondent on 20-2-1999 under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter called the Act), detaining him in custody for one year. The said order is produced along with the writ petition as Annexure 'A'. Along with the said order on the same day the grounds of detention was also issued by the first respondent against the aforesaid detenu Parag Shashikant Todkari. The petitioner challenges these orders by way of this writ petition. 2.Mr. Marvadi the learned Counsel for the petitioner though raised several contentions in the writ petition, during hearing he pressed before us only one ground. He submits that there was inordinate delay in passing the detention order from the last prejudicial activities. The last prejudicial activities disclosed in the camera statement is dated 7-11-1998. The prejudicial activities mentioned in camera statement of 7-11-1998 is stated to be that the detenu and his associate Sanjay Gawali, Sukumar Shetty, Altaf Shaikh and Prakash Mudras are notorious goondas and affiliated to 'Arun Gawali Gang.' The detenu and his associates armed with deadly weapons such as knife, revolver, chopper and hockey-stick and moving about in the localities of Hanuman Nagar, Pratap Nagar, Maharashtra Nagar, Bainganpada, Quarry Road, Bhandup (West) and forcibly collect 'khandni' money from the residents, shop keepers, and businessmen and thereby creating reign of terror in the locality and in such areas so that none dares to lodge complaint against the detenu and his associates. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner because of the delay in passing the detention order on 20-2-1999 it snaps the live link between the alleged activities of sic and passing the detention order and therefore there was no necessity for issuing a detention order. 3.Shri R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Bruhan Mumbai, who is the detaining authority had filed an affidavit on 6th July 1999, replying the allegations contained in the writ petition and also explaining the delay. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent on 6-7-1999, it appears that there was no sufficient explanation for the aforesaid delay. We therefore directed the Addl. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent on 6-7-1999, it appears that there was no sufficient explanation for the aforesaid delay. We therefore directed the Addl. A.P.P. to file a detailed affidavit with more details in causing delay in passing the detention order and the last prejudicial activities. In compliance with that direction Shri R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, has filed an additional affidavit on 9th July 1999. On perusal of the affidavit, we find that the time taken for passing the detention order from the last report of prejudicial activities namely 7-11-1998 has been satisfactorily explained. 4.In his affidavit Mr. Mendonca has stated that the proposal for detention was initiated by Senior Inspector of Police, Bhandup Police Station on 19-11-1998 and the same has been sent to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mulund Division, Bombay through proper channel. After carefully considering the proposal, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mulund Division, has endorsed the proposal and forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-VI on 3-12-1998. It has to be noted that from 19-11-1998 to 3-12-1998 the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mulund Division was dealing with 4 M.P.D.A. proposals for detention and these four proposal has to be forwarded through proper channel. However, all these proposals have been scrutinised and the same has been forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mulund Division, on 7-12-1998. It has been explained in the affidavit that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Airport Zone was put in his additional charge of Zone VI, and he had to attend so many other problems including the law and order situation in this areas. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, who is also put in additional charge of additional Zone, recommended the proposal and forwarded the same to the Additional Commissioner of Police, North-East region on 24-12-1998. 25th, 26th, and 27th Dec. 1998 were closed holidays and on 28th Dec. 1998 the Additional Commissioner of Police, North-East region received the file and considered the proposal and placed the recommendation on 4-1-1999. The said proposal was received in the office of P.C.B. C.I.D. on 9-1-1999 and Senior P.I. P.C.B. C.I.D. thereafter prepared detailed note and submitted the same for legal opinion to the Assistant Director of Public Prosecutor on 12-1-1999. The Assistant Director of Public Prosecution considered the present proposal and gave his opinion on 19-1-1999. The said proposal was received in the office of P.C.B. C.I.D. on 9-1-1999 and Senior P.I. P.C.B. C.I.D. thereafter prepared detailed note and submitted the same for legal opinion to the Assistant Director of Public Prosecutor on 12-1-1999. The Assistant Director of Public Prosecution considered the present proposal and gave his opinion on 19-1-1999. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Prevention on receipt of the proposal on 19-1-1999 recommended the same on 21-1-1999. He then submitted the proposal to Deputy Commissioner of Police (Prevention) on 21-1-1999 and on 22-1-1999 he recommended the proposal and the said proposal was sent to the Additional Commissioner on 22-1-1999 and the Additional Commissioner (Crime) considered the proposal and recommended the same on 25-1-1999 with his remarks and sent the proposal to Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime). The Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) on 25-1-1999 received the same and after careful scrutiny he recommended the same on 27-1-1999. On 27-1-1999 Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) sent the proposal to the Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority considered the proposal on 1-2-1999 and formed prima facie opinion that it is a fit case to consider the proposal for detention. On that basis Senior Police Inspector, P.C.B. C.I.D. was directed to prepare compilation of documents along with the translations and on 16-2-1999 after preparing this compilation of documents, submitted the same to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) and the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) put up the file along with the compilation on 16-2-1999 and after considering the proposal finally the detaining authority passed the impugned order on 20-2-1999. 5.On the basis of the above explanation the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Marvadi specifically questioned the delay occurred during the period from 19-11-1998 to 21-12-1998 and 1-2-1999 to 20-2-1999. 6.While adverting to the objections raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we have to bear in mind that we are not dealing with the situation where the detaining Authority is required to explain the delay of each day. On the other hand what is required to be examined by us in this context is whether there is any laxity or lethargy in moving the file and passing the detention order in the bureaucratic channel so that there should not be any complaint of non application of mind in passing the detention order. On the other hand what is required to be examined by us in this context is whether there is any laxity or lethargy in moving the file and passing the detention order in the bureaucratic channel so that there should not be any complaint of non application of mind in passing the detention order. On a close scrutiny of the explanation offered by the Police Commissioner, we do not find that the department was at any point of time lethargic or shown any complacency in moving the file from one authority to the other. The time required for moving the file has been well explained by the respondents in this case. Therefore we find that the time required from the last prejudicial activities and the order passed is satisfactorily explained by the first respondent and it cannot be said that because of this delay in between the last prejudicial activities and the passing of the order the live link of the prejudicial activities is snapped. As contented by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In view of this, we find no merit in the writ petition. It is liable to be dismissed. We do so. 7.In the result, writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed. -----