JUDGMENT- N.J. PANDYA, J.:---When the petition was filed the matter was very much alive because at pre-detention stage the order passed under National Security Act, popularly known as N.S.A. was sought to be challenged. Inspite of preliminary objection that the matter was filed at pre-detention stage, on 18th June 1996 the matter was admitted after hearing both the sides. Interim relief also came to be granted in terms of prayer clause (b). 2.The impugned order was to remain in force for a period of one year. Had the detenu-petitioner, therefore, been detained under the impugned order dated 26th June 1996, the same at the earliest would have to come an end by 26th June 1997 or little later if the actual execution was delayed. 3.However, it is an admitted position that till date the order has not been implemented. 4.The passage of time has brought about statutory change with regard to the applicability of the said National Security Act, 1980 to the State of Maharashtra. In the year 1981, the State had come out with local detention law known as Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 referred to as M.P.D.A. where, by introducing section 17 in the year 1996 with regard to the slumlords, bootleggers or drug-offenders as also in respect of dangerous persons operation of N.S.A. was excluded and these persons were, therefore, to be dealt with exclusively under M.P.D.A. 5.The position that has developed, therefore, is that today if the order is to be implemented, N.S.A. is no longer in force. Theoretically, execution may be possible. However, for the entire period from the date of the said order passed by this Court when the petitioner has remained free and the order could not be executed, whatever the activities during the interregnum will have a direct bearing on the question, if at all, the order is to be implemented today. 6.The detention order by very nature is to prevent harmful activities of the intended detenu. If he has remained free and otherwise available during the interregnum, question will have to be considered at the later stage of implementation of order as to whether the live-link between the circumstances that prompted the detaining authority to pass the order are still subsisting and whether the circumstances warrant execution of the order. If he has remained free and otherwise available during the interregnum, question will have to be considered at the later stage of implementation of order as to whether the live-link between the circumstances that prompted the detaining authority to pass the order are still subsisting and whether the circumstances warrant execution of the order. 7.This aspect was considered by the Supreme Court in (Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu)1, reported in 1979(1) S.C.C. 465 , dealing with the contention of delay. Their Lordships were pleased to point out in para 6 at page 469 that there has to be live and proximate link between the grounds of detention alleged by the detaining authority and the avowed purpose of detention. It is further observed that in appropriate cases there could be an assumption of snapping of link if there is a long and unexplained delay between the date of the order of detention and the arrest of the detenu. 8.In the matter before Their Lordships, in fact, it was found that the delay was mainly due to the detenu. He was found absconding. All possible steps were taken to find him out including publication of proclamation, exhibiting photographs, declaring reward etc. Inspite of these efforts, the detenu of that case could not be found. The delay, therefore, was not considered enough to snap the link as it had occasioned due to the conduct of the detenu himself. 9.In the case before us the situation is, from the stand point of the detenu, totally different. It is nobody's case that he is not available. After the grant of stay by this Court, except for opposing the admission by filing affidavit, no return has been filed by the State. During the period that the order was subsisting, no efforts were made to get the matter heard. As on the date, therefore, the situation is that almost three years have passed from the date of the order and still if the order is allowed to be implemented, obviously, the link between the grounds of detention will stand snapped for want of proximity. In other words passage of time has totally diluted the circumstances because unless they are shown to be perpetuating during the interval which can be done only on the basis of fresh material, in our opinion, the impugned order can no longer be executed against the detenu. In other words passage of time has totally diluted the circumstances because unless they are shown to be perpetuating during the interval which can be done only on the basis of fresh material, in our opinion, the impugned order can no longer be executed against the detenu. The detaining authority, therefore, as per judgment in Bhawarlal's case in para 6, will have to indicate a fresh application of the mind to the new situation and the changed circumstances. Therefore, following the said judgment, as set out in para 6, where also the delay is indicated to be given due weightage, we come to the conclusion that the order cannot be implemented in the facts and circumstances of the case. Their Lordships had also gone to the extent of saying that in such cases the order may have been struck down unless the grounds indicate the fresh application of the mind of the detaining authority to the new situation and the changed circumstances. 10.We clarify at the same time that as the matter is being decided only on this count, we are not entering into the question of merits of the impugned order. Striking down of the order, therefore, is only with regard to the implementation. This is being done for want of material as to the new situation and the changed circumstances as also material with regard to the application of the mind of the detaining authority to them. 11.In the result, petition with regard to the impugned order succeeds as to its implementation and it is struck down for that purpose alone. Rule is made absolute accordingly. -----