JUDGMENT - SAHAI VISHNU, J.:--Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-detenu, has impugned the detention order dated 17th November, 1998, passed by the 1st respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining him under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996). 2. The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 17th November, 1998 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 11-2-1999. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexures "A" and "B" respectively to this writ petition. 3. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu on which the impugned detention order is founded are stipulated therein. Their perusal shows that the impugned detention order is founded on one C.R. which is detailed in ground 5(a-ii) and two in-camera statements dated 28-5-1998 and 25-5-1998 of witnesses A and B respectively. Ground 5(a-ii) refers to C.R. No. 117/98, under sections 387, 34, Indian Penal Code (during investigation sections 393, 394, 397, 34, Indian Penal Code read with 4, 25 of the Arms Act were added) registered on the complaint dated 24-5-1998 filed by Yatin Premji Dedia at Ghatkopar Police Station. 4. We have heard Mr. U.N. Tripathi for the petitioner-detenu and Mr. Rajiv Patil, A.P.P. for respondents. Although in the writ petition Mr. U.N. Tripathi learned Counsel for the petitioner-detenu has pleaded as many as seven grounds, stipulated as Grounds 5-A to 5-G, but since in our view, this writ petition deserves to succeed on ground 8-B alone we are not adverting to other grounds. The short and long of Ground 8-B is that although the last prejudicial activity alleged against the petitioner-detenu comprises of in-camera statement of witnesses "A" dated 28-5-1998 the impugned detention order was issued nearly six months later, on 17-11-1998. In the contention of Mr. U.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner-detenu, on account of this inordinate delay between 28th May, 1998 and 17th November, 1998 the live link between the prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu and the rationale of clamping a detention order on him has been snapped and consequently the detention order instead of being preventive, as it should be in law, has become punitive. 5. 5. Ground 8-B has been replied to in para 11 of the return of the Detaining Authority. In the said paragraph the Detaining Authority has mentioned as under: (i) The proposal was submitted for preventively detaining the detenu by the Senior Inspector of Poilce of Ghatkopar Police Station on 6-1-1998 through the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ghatkopar Division who received the same on 9-7-1998 and the same day forwarded it to the Deputy Commissioner of Police; (ii) The Deputy Commissioner of Police received the said proposal on 13-7-1998 and submitted the same that very day to the Additional Commissioner of Police; (iii) On 15-7-1998 the Additional Commissioner of Police scrutinised the proposal and recommended it the same day to P.C.B., C.I.D, which received it on 28-8-1998; (iv) The Senior Inspector of Police, P.C.B., C.I.D., submitted the proposal to the Assistant Director of Public Prosecution for legal opinion and the latter after opining it that it is a fit case submitted the proposal to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Preventive) on 21-9-1998; (v) The A.C.P. (Preventive) recommended the proposal to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, who forwarded the same with his remarks to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) on 9-10-1998; (vi) The Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) on 15-10-1998 submitted the proposal to the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) who made his endorsement the same day and submitted the same before the Detaining Authority on 16-10-1998; (vii) The Detaining Authority considered the proposal and concluded that it was a fit case for detention and directed the P.C.B., C.I.D., to prepare a compilation and translation and the latter complied with his directions on 14-11-1998; and (viii) On 14-11-1998 the P.C.B., C.I.D., submitted the proposal to Additional Commissioner of Police who in turn submitted it to the Detaining Authority 16-11-1998, who on the next date (17-11-1998) formulated the grounds of detention and passed the impugned detention order. 6. We have perused ground 8-B of the petition and the reply of the Detaining Authority contained in para 11 of this return. In our view the delay in the issuance of the detention order has not been satisfactorily explained in four pockets; viz.:-- (a) Between 15-7-1998 to 28-8-1998; (b) Between 28-8-1998 to 21-9-1998; (c) Between 21-9-1998 to 9-10-1998 and (d) Between 16-10-1998 to 14-11-1998. In our view the delay in the issuance of the detention order has not been satisfactorily explained in four pockets; viz.:-- (a) Between 15-7-1998 to 28-8-1998; (b) Between 28-8-1998 to 21-9-1998; (c) Between 21-9-1998 to 9-10-1998 and (d) Between 16-10-1998 to 14-11-1998. The Supreme Court in the case of (Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra and another)1, 1982(2) Bom.C.R. 218 (S.C.) in paragraph 6, has observed thus: ".....Delay ipso facto in passing an order of detention after an incident is not fatal to the detention of a person, for, in certain cases delay may be unavoidable and reasonable. What is required by law is that the delay must be satisfactorily explained by the Detaining Authority." The said case was also considered by the Supreme Court in the case of (Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar v. Shri S. Ramamurthi and others)2, J.T. 1992(3) S.C. 261. In para 14 of the said decision the Supreme Court has laid down that once a specific plea of delay has been taken, the unexplained delay, whether short or long, should be explained and if the same is not explained the detention order will have to struck down. 7. For the said reasons in our view the impugned detention order is vitiated on the vice of delay in its issuance. On account of the said vice the live-link between the prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu and the rationale of clamping a detention order on him has been snapped and the detention order instead of being preventive, as it should be in law, has become punitive and will have to be struck down. 8. In the result we allow this writ petition; quash and set aside the impugned detention order; and direct that the petitioner-detenu, Yeshwant alias Yeshya Mahadeo Patil shall be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Rule is made absolute. Writ petition allowed. -----