JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.: Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu-Prakash @ Pakya Yeshwant Manjrekar, has impugned the detention order dated 22-2-1999 passed by the respondent No. 1-Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu 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), also referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act. 2. The prejudicial activities of the detenu are contained in the grounds of detention dated 22-2-1999. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexures A and C respectively to the petition. 3. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned detention order is founded on two N.C.Rs. 1 C.R. and three in-camera statements. The details of the first N.C.R are mentioned in para 4(a). In short, it has been alleged therein that on 14-8-1998, one Shankar Anant Raut lodged a complaint at the Agripada Police Station alleging therein that the detenu had given him threats because of his suspicion that his illicit liquor business was closed at his instance. Grounds 4(b) to 4(b)(vii) deal with the criminal complaint filed by one Shrikant Avashikar, on 27-10-1998, at the Agripada Police Station, on the basis of which, on offence under section 326 read with 34, Indian Penal Code was registered against the detenu and his associates vide C.R. No. 307/1998. It has been alleged that on 27-10-1998, at about 6.30 p.m. when Shrikant Avashikar was proceeding along with verandah of building No. 2 in B.I.T. Chawl to take exercise, the detenu's associate Naresh Kadu pounced upon him and the detenu inflicted chopper blows on his back, knees and head. As a consequence of the act committed by the detenu and his associates, the nearby residents closed their doors and windows out of fear and an unusual clam prevailed. Ground No. 4(c) deals with a N.C complaint dated 1-11-1998 lodged by Shankar Anant Raut at the Agripada Police Station against the detenu. As a consequence of the act committed by the detenu and his associates, the nearby residents closed their doors and windows out of fear and an unusual clam prevailed. Ground No. 4(c) deals with a N.C complaint dated 1-11-1998 lodged by Shankar Anant Raut at the Agripada Police Station against the detenu. It is mentioned therein that on the said date, while he (Shankar Anant Raut) and his wife were proceeding along the Anandrao Nair Road and had reached near the Hindusthan Mill Gate, the detenu threatened him and picked up a quarrel with him regarding the N.C. complaint mentioned in ground No. 4(a). The three in-camera statements are contained in ground Nos. 4(d)(i), 4(d)(ii) and 4(d)(iii). In ground No. 4(d)(i) it has been mentioned that witness A who is a vegetable vendor residing in B.I.T. Chawl, Agripada, Mumbai, in his statement dated 11-11-1998, stated that he knew the detenu as a person having connection with Amar Naik gang and being engaged with his associates in extorting monies from the shop-keepers etc. on the point of lethal weapons. Sometimes, in the second week of October, 1998, at about 11 a.m. when he started his business, an unknown person came to him and told him that the detenu had called him at the B.I.T. Chawl. No. 2/1. He got scared and followed the unknown person and when he approached the detenu, the latter threatened him in abusive language and asked him to pay Rs. 5,000/- and when he told him that it was difficult to give such a big amount, the associates of the detenue, at the instance, of the detenu, turned his hand-cart turtle. Seeing this incident, the hawkers and customers ran away helter-skelter and then he agreed to give Rs. 5,000/- to the detenu. Ground No. 4(d)(ii) deals with the statement of witness 'B' who is working and residing at B.I.T. Chawl, Agripada, Mumbai. He stated that he knew the detenu as a member of the Amar Naik gang who used to extort monies from the hawkers and shop-keepers on the point of lethal weapons. He stated that in the last week of September, 1998, sometimes in the night, when he had gone to take pan, the detenu along with two others caught hold of him, abused him and the associates of the detenu pointed out knives and choppers towards him. Thereafter, the detenu extended threats to kill him. He stated that in the last week of September, 1998, sometimes in the night, when he had gone to take pan, the detenu along with two others caught hold of him, abused him and the associates of the detenu pointed out knives and choppers towards him. Thereafter, the detenu extended threats to kill him. Ground No. 4(d)(iii) deals with in-camera statement of witness 'C'. He is a vegetable vendor residing in Municipal Colony, on B.J. Road, Agripada, Mumbai. In his statement dated 12-11-1998, he stated that he knew the detenu as a member of the Amar Naik gang and a person who used to extort money on the point of knife and choppers. Sometimes in the first week of October 1998 when he was proceeding towards Mumbai Central and had reached near the Maratha Mandir Cinema, the detenu and his associates approached him in a taxi and called him aside. The detenu threatened him, demanding Rs. 5,000/- from him. When he expressed his inability to pay the amount, the detenu and his associates took out a knife and held it on his chest. On account of this, he gave the detenu Rs. 1,500/-. Seeing this, the people got scared and ran away. 4. We have heard Mr. S.R. Chitnis for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Although Mr. Chitnis has pleaded in this petition three grounds but, we are not adverting to all of them, as in our view, this petition deserves to be allowed on Ground No. 10(HH). Ground No. 10(HH) in short, is that there was an inordinate delay in the issuance of the impugned detention order and on account of the same, the live-link between the prejudicial activities of the detenu and the rationale of clamping a detention order on him is snapped, vitiating the detention order in law. Mr. Chitnis learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the last prejudicial activity is the in-camera statement of witness 'C' dated 12-1-1998 and the impugned detention order was passed three months and ten days later i.e. on 22-2-1999. Mr Chitnis urged that in the return filed by the Detaining Authority respondent No. 1, no satisfactory explanation has been furnished regarding the delay in the issuance of the detention order. 5. Ground No. 10(HH) has been replied to in para 35 of the return of the Detaining Authority (respondent No. 1). Mr Chitnis urged that in the return filed by the Detaining Authority respondent No. 1, no satisfactory explanation has been furnished regarding the delay in the issuance of the detention order. 5. Ground No. 10(HH) has been replied to in para 35 of the return of the Detaining Authority (respondent No. 1). In the said para, he has averred that there is no delay in the issuance of the detention order and the live-link between the prejudicial activities of the detenu and the rationale of clamping a detention order on him has not been snapped. In short, in the said para, the Detaining Authority has averred as under :- (a) On 11-11-1998 and 12-11-1998, the in-camera statements of witnesses A, B and C were recorded which show that people were not prepared to come forward to openly depose against the detenu as he was member of the Amar Naik gang; (b) On 21-11-1998, the proposal for detaining the detenu under the M.P.D.A. Act, was submitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who recommended the said proposal and submitted the same to the Dy. Commissioner of Police on 23-11-1998. On 26-11-1998, the Dy. Commissioner of Police, forwarded the proposal to the Additional Commissioner of Police, who recommended the same to the Preventive Crime Branch, Mumbai, on 27-11-1998; (c) On 7-12-1998, the Senior Inspector of Police, P.C.B. C.I.D., Mumbai submitted the said proposal for legal opinion to the Additional Director of Public Prosecution, Mumbai, who on 9-12-1998, opined that it was a fit case to consider the proposal by the Detaining Authority; (d) The said proposal was submitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime Branch), Mumbai on 9-12-1998 which was forwarded by him to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, on 15-12-1998. On 17-12-1998, the Dy. Commissioner of Police, on 15-12-1998. On 17-12-1998, the Dy. Commissioner of Police submitted the said proposal to the Additional Commissioner of Police who in turn submitted it on 18-12-1998 to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Mumbai; who on 7-1-1999 submitted it to the Detaining Authority; (e) On 7-1-1999, the said proposal was considered by the Detaining Authority who found prima facie a fit case warranting the preventive detention of the detenu under the M.P.D.A. Act and consequently directed the P.C.B., C.I.D., Mumbai to prepare the compilation and the translation and the latter complied with his directions on 13-2-1999; and (f) The P.C.B., C.I.D., Mumbai on 13-2-1999 submitted a proposal to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, who forwarded it to the Detaining Authority on 16-2-1999 and on 22-2-1999, the Detaining Authority passed the impugned detention order. 6. The grievance of Mr. Chitnis is that in the following pockets, there was delay on the part of the respondents :— (i) The delay of 9 days between 12-11-1998 to 21-11-1998 in formulating the proposal; (ii) The delay of 10 days i.e. 27-11-1998 and 7-12-1998 on the part of the Senior Inspector of Police, P.C.B., C.I.D., Mumbai, in submitting the proposal for legal opinion of the Additional Director of Public Prosecutions, Mumbai; (iii) The delay of 6 days i.e. between 9-12-1998 and 15-12-1998 on the part of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, in forwarding the proposal to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Mumbai; (iv) The delay of 19 days i.e. between 18-12-1998 to 7-1-1999 on the part of the Joint Commissioner of Police, in submitting the proposal to the Detaining Authority. (v) The delay between 7-1-1999 and 13-2-1999 i.e. a delay of one month and 12 days on the part of the P.C.B., C.I.D., Mumbai, in preparing the compilation; (vi) The delay of 6 days i.e. between 16-2-1999 and 22-2-1999 on the part of the Detaining Authority in issuing the detention order. 7. We make no bones in observing that the delay contained in (i) to (iv) and (vi) by itself would not be adequate in vitiating the detention order on the vice of delay in its issuance but, we have no reservations in observing that the delay of one month and 12 days taken by the P.C.B., C.I.D., Mumbai, in preparing the compilation is indefensible and the said delay coupled with the delay referred to above is fatal. In our view, there was no justification for the P.C.B., C.I.D., Mumbai, in taking one month and 10 days in preparing the compilation. After all, in the instant case, the prejudicial activities of the detenu, contained in the grounds of detention, which have been referred to above, were not of such an extensive nature that a mass of documents were involved for which a time of one month and ten days would have been taken in preparing the compilation. In our view, this long time was taken by the P.C.B., C.I.D., Mumbai, in preparing the compilation because, it was completely oblivious of the fact that the compilation in preventive detention matter, was to be prepared with greatest urgency and promptitude and not in a cavalier fashion. 8. Mr Rajiv Patil, learned Counsel for the respondents strenuously urged that even assuming that there was some delay in the issuance of the detention order, the said delay on account of the propensity and potentiality of the detenu would not snap the live-link between the prejudicial activities of the detenu and the rationale of clamping a detention order on him. We have examined his submission. Earlier, we have mentioned in some detail the prejudicial activities of the detenu. Excepting the C.R. giving rise to the case under section 326, Indian Penal Code, other complaints mentioned in the grounds of detention are non-cognisable complaints. 9. Whether on account of propensity and potentiality of the detenu the live-link between the prejudicial activities of the detenu and the rationale of clamping a detention order on him is snapped, is a question of fact and not one of law. In our view, on the facts of this case, bearing in mind the prejudicial activities of the detenu, it cannot be said that inspite of the time-lag between 12-11-1998 and 22-2-1999 the live-link between the prejudicial activities of the detenu and the rationale of clamping a detention order on him had not been snapped on account of his propensity and potentiality. 10. 10. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 656, (Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar v. Ramamurthi and others)1, after referring to a series of decisions rendered by it on the point of delay in issuing a detention order, in para 14, has observed that unexplained delay whether short or long, where a specific plea of delay in the issuance of the detention order has been taken, is sufficient to quash the detention order. It would also be pertinent to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1982(2) Bom.C.R. 218 (Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra)2, where at page 13, the Supreme Court has held that where there is a delay in issuing a detention order, the same has to be satisfactorily explained by the Detaining Authority. 11. In our view, in the instant case, the failure of the Detaining Authority to furnish a satisfactory explanation with respect to the delay in the issuance of the detention order has snapped the live-link between the prejudicial activities of the detenu and the rationale of clamping a detention order on him and consequently, the detention order has ceased to be preventive, as it should be in law but, has become punitive and consequently, cannot be sustained. 12. In the circumstances, we allow this writ petition; quash the impugned detention order; direct that the detenu Prakash @ Pakya Yeshwant Manjrekar be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case; and make the Rule absolute. Writ petition allowed. -----