JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Mahendra Prabhakar Gaikwad has impugned the order dated 16-3-2001 passed by the second respondent Mr. M.N. Singh, 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) (hereinafter referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act). The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 16-3-2001 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 28-9-2001 and their true copies have been annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition. 2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure B) would show that the impugned order is founded on two C.Rs. namely C.R. No. 144 of 2001 under sections 392, 397, 342, 427, 34 I.P.C. read with sections 3, 25 of the Arms Act (subsequently section 216(a) I.P.C. was added) registered on the basis of the complaint dated 8-6-2000 lodged by Atul Sanghvi at V.P. Road Police Station, and C.R. No. 55 of 2000 under sections 399, 402 I.P.C. r/w 4, 25 of the Arms Act registered on the basis of a complaint dated 19-6-2000 lodged by Police Constable Surendra Rajaram Pol at D.C.B. C.I.D. Unit, Ghatkopar, Bombay and in-camera statements of two witnesses, namely A and B which were recorded on 28-9-2000. Since, in our view, a reference to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner detenu contained in the said C.R's and in camera statements is not necessary for the disposal of this writ petition, we are not adverting to them. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Although in this writ petition, Ms. D. Suvarna Rajesh learned Counsel for the petitioner has pleaded a large number of grounds, numbered as grounds 8-A to 8-H, but since in our view, this petition deserves to succeed on Ground No. 8-C alone, we are not adverting to the other grounds of challenge raised in the petition. 4. Ground No. 8-C in substance is that although the in-camera statements were recorded in the month of September, 2000 but, the impugned order was 5½ months later i.e. on 16-3-2001. 4. Ground No. 8-C in substance is that although the in-camera statements were recorded in the month of September, 2000 but, the impugned order was 5½ months later i.e. on 16-3-2001. The pleading therein is that the aforesaid delay in the issuance of the detention order has rendered it unsustainable in law and it warrants to be quashed and set aside. 5. Ground No. 8-C has been replied to in two returns namely in para 9 of the return of the Detaining Authority and in paras 3 to 14 of the return of Mr. S.V. Bhagadikar, Assistant Police Inspector attached to V.P. Road Police Station, Mumbai (sponsoring authority). 6. We now propose extracting the substance of the reply contained in the said returns. We begin with para 9 of the return of the Detaining Authority. In short, he has stated therein as under :- The in-camera statements of the witnesses were recorded on 28-9-2000. Thereafter, the sponsoring authority went through all the material and after preparing the necessary sets of documents and getting them typed etc. submitted the proposal on 30-9-2000 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone 11, Mumbai who went through it and gave his endorsement on 8-10-2000; 1st, 2nd and 7th October, 2000 being holidays. Thereafter, the papers were forwarded to the Additional Commissioner of Police, South Region who gave his endorsement on 11-10-2000 and forwarded them to the Senior P.I.P.C.B. C.I.D. Mumbai on 16-10-2000; 14th and 15th October, 2000 being holidays. On 16-10-2000, the Senior P.I.P.C.B. C.I.D. Bombay gave his endorsement and forwarded the papers to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, C.B. (Preventive) who went through them and gave his endorsement thereon on 19-10-2000 and forwarded the papers to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) who went through them and gave his endorsement on 20-10-2000. Thereafter, the papers were forwarded to the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) who went through them and gave his endorsement on 21-10-2000. On 21-10-2000, the papers were forwarded to the Detaining Authority who gave his endorsement thereon on 4-1-2001. Why it took the Detaining Authority 2½ months to give his endorsement has been explained in terms that between 23-10-2000 to 3-1-2001, a large number of detention matters for approval were pending and many ready detention matters were also placed before him for consideration and for issuance of detention orders and the said matters were prior to the present proposal. Why it took the Detaining Authority 2½ months to give his endorsement has been explained in terms that between 23-10-2000 to 3-1-2001, a large number of detention matters for approval were pending and many ready detention matters were also placed before him for consideration and for issuance of detention orders and the said matters were prior to the present proposal. During the said period, 47 fresh proposals were received for approval and 53 detention orders were issued by the Detaining Authority which pertained to the proposals initiated prior to the proposal to detain the detenu. On 4-1-2001, the Detaining Authority forwarded the papers to the sponsoring authority for the purposes of fair typing, translation of documents in the language known to the detenu and for preparation of necessary sets of documents. After the said work had been completed, the Senior Police Inspector, P.C.B.C.I.D. Bombay carefully went through the papers and forwarded the same on 21-2-2001 to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) who gave his endorsement on 22-2-2001. On 22-2-2001, the papers were forwarded by the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) to the Detaining Authority who issued the impugned detention order on 16-3-2001. Why it took the Detaining Authority 22 days to issue the impugned detention order has been explained in terms that during the period between 22-2-2001 to 15-3-2001, there were 18 fresh proposals which were at initial stages and 16 proposals which were in final stages wherein he issued the detention orders and these proposals were prior to the present proposal. Another explanation is in terms that during the said period, there were holidays on five dates namely 24-2-2001, 25-2-2001, 4-3-2001, 10-3-2001 and 11-3-2001. 7. We now take up the return of Mr. S.V. Bhagadikar, Assistant Police Inspector. As mentioned earlier, he has replied to Ground No. 8-C in paras 3 to 14 of his return. Since the major part of the reply contained in the said paras is reiteration of the reply contained in para 9 of the return of the Detaining Authority, we do not want to burden our judgment by referring to it. Consequently, we restrict ourselves to that part of his reply which is not contained in para 9 of the return of the Detaining Authority. Consequently, we restrict ourselves to that part of his reply which is not contained in para 9 of the return of the Detaining Authority. A perusal of paras 8, 9 and 10 of his return shows that he has sought to explain the delay between 4-1-2001 and 21-2-2001; which delay has not been explained in the return of the Detaining Authority. His explanation is as under :- The papers were received on 5-1-2001. Since translations had to be done in Marathi, he gave the work of translations to a private translator in the evening of 6-1-2001. On 17-2-2001, the private translator, after completing the translation, gave the papers to him and after checking them, he sent them to the Senior P.I. C.I.D., Bombay on 21-2-2001. In para 10 of his return, he has stated that 520 pages had to be translated in Marathi and between 5-1-2001 and 21-2-2001, there were holidays on ten dates i.e. 7-1-2001, 13-1-2001, 14-1-2001, 21-1-2001, 26-1-2001, 27-1-2001, 28-1-2001, 4-2-2001, 10-2-2001 and 11-2-2001. 8. We have perused the averments in Ground No. 8-C of the petition, those contained in para 9 of the return of the Detaining Authority and paras 3 to 14 of the return of Assistant Police Inspector Mr. S.V. Bhagadikar, (the sponsoring authority) and heard learned Counsel for the parties. We make no bones in observing that we find merit in Ground No. 8-C. 9. It is well settled that delay simplicitor in the issuance of a detention order does not vitiate it on the vice of delay in its issuance. A detention order is only vitiated on the said vice if no satisfactory explanation for the delay is forthcoming. See (Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1982(2) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)218, at page 13. To our regret, the delay in the issuance of the detention order has not been satisfactorily explained in our pockets namely:- (A) between 30-9-2000 and 8-10-2000; (B) between 21-10-2000 and 4-1-2001; and (C) between 5-1-2001 and 21-2-2001; (D) between 22-2-2001 and 15-3-2001; 10. We begin with the delay in pocket (A). A perusal of para 9 of the return of the Detaining Authority shows that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone 11, Bombay received the personal on 30-9-2000 and gave his endorsement thereon on 8-10-2000. No reason has been mentioned as to why it took him a time of eight days to give his endorsement. A perusal of para 9 of the return of the Detaining Authority shows that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone 11, Bombay received the personal on 30-9-2000 and gave his endorsement thereon on 8-10-2000. No reason has been mentioned as to why it took him a time of eight days to give his endorsement. In our view, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone 11, Bombay did not deal with the proposal with the promptitude with which a preventive detention proposal should have been dealt with by them. However, we make no bones in observing that this delay on eight days by itself would not have been adequate for striking down the detention order on the vice of delay in its issuance. 11. We now take up the delay in pocket (B) i.e. between 21-10-2000 and 4-1-2001. The Detaining Authority in para 9 of his return has explained the delay by averring that between 23-3-2000 to 3-1-2001, there were a large number of detention matters pending for approval as well as many ready detention matters were placed before him for consideration and for issuance of the detention orders which were received prior to the present order of detention. During the said period, 47 fresh proposals were received for approval and 53 detention orders were issued by him which were prior to the present order of detention. We have considered the said explanation of the Detaining Authority and are constrained to observe that not only do we find it to be inadequate but, also blissfully vague. The explanation that a large number of detention matters were pending for approval and many detention matters were placed before the Detaining Authority is a blissfully vague explanation. The Detaining Authority should have actually specified the number of proposals and the number of detention matters pending before him. It should be remembered that what is large is a matter of individual perception. A may consider a certain number to be large but, B and C may not consider the same to be large. Therefore, this part of the explanation is unsatisfactory. Again the explanation that 47 fresh proposals were pending is also not cogent. This Court has repeatedly and emphatically held that fresh proposals should never be given precedence over proposals received earlier. First come first serve is a principle which is followed in all civilised societies. It equally applies to government functionaries. Therefore, this part of the explanation is unsatisfactory. Again the explanation that 47 fresh proposals were pending is also not cogent. This Court has repeatedly and emphatically held that fresh proposals should never be given precedence over proposals received earlier. First come first serve is a principle which is followed in all civilised societies. It equally applies to government functionaries. If the Detaining Authority chose to depart from it and gave precedence to fresh proposals over or proposals received earlier, then we cannot accept his explanation to be satisfactory. The only satisfactory explanation furnished by the Detaining Authority is that he issued 53 detention orders in proposals which were initiated prior to the proposal to detain the detenu. All of us know that the issuance of a detention order hardly takes any time. The detention order is issued by the Detaining Authority after a file fully processed comes to him, issuance of the detention in the final act performed by the Detaining Authority. At that stage he does not have to apply his mind, because he has already applied it when the file earlier came before him and he gave his endorsement that the detenu should be preventively detained. We are afraid that this explanation is far from a satisfactory one, because in a judgment, hardly any time must have been consumed in issuing 53 detention orders. 12. In our judgment, the delay in pocket (B) is a fatal delay which by itself is sufficient to vitiate the detention order on the vice of delay in its issuance. 13. We now come to pocket (C) i.e. the delay between 5-1-2001 and 21-2-2001. The sponsoring authority in his return has stated that on 6-1-2001, he had given the papers for translation in Marathi to a private translator who completed the job on 17-2-2001 and thereafter, sent back the papers. He has also stated that 520 pages had to be translated in Marathi. Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar, learned Counsel for the respondents strenuously urged that considering the fact that 520 pages had to be translated in Marathi the time of one month and 12 days consumed by the private translator in preparing the translation cannot be stigmatised as being unduly long. On the first blush, the submission appeared to be attractive but, on a deeper scrutiny, we could not be persuaded to accept it. On the first blush, the submission appeared to be attractive but, on a deeper scrutiny, we could not be persuaded to accept it. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that in Bombay, there is no dearth of private translators who can translate in Marathi language. If the sponsoring authority felt that 520 pages of documents had to be translated in Marathi language, then he should have assigned the work of translation to a number of translators say five or six. No explanation has been furnished by him in his return as to why he did not distribute the work of translation to a number of translators. Mr. Mhaispurkar also urged that in between 6-1-2001 and 17-1-2001, there were 10 holidays and if they are excluded then the time taken for translation in Marathi comes to one month and two days which cannot be castigated as being unduly long. It is true that this Court excludes holidays in cases of Government functionaries because, the offices remain closed on holidays. But, the principle of exclusion of holidays does not apply to people in private profession and will not apply to private translators. Hence, we reject the submission of Mr. Mhaispurkar. For the said reasons, in our view, there is also inordinate delay in this pocket. 14. We now come to the delay in pocket (D) i.e. between 22-2-2001 and 15-3-2001. The Detaining Authority has explained the delay in terms that between 22-2-2001 to 15-3-2001, there were 18 fresh proposals which were at initial stages and 16 proposals which were in final stages, wherein he issued the detention orders and which were prior to the detenu's proposal. We are constrained to observe that in our view, this explanation is not satisfactory. We have earlier mentioned that the Detaining Authority should not have given precedence to fresh proposals over the detenu's proposal. In that view of the matter, the explanation that he had to deal with 18 fresh proposals cannot be accepted as a valid one. Coming to the other explanation namely he issued detention orders in 16 matters, wherein proposals were received prior to the proposal to detain the detenu, there cannot be any quarrel that the Detaining Authority acted correctly in giving them precedence over the detenu's proposal but, as we have mentioned earlier, at the stage of issuing the detention order, the Detaining Authority has to do precious little. In our view, he would have hardly taken any time in issuing 16 detention orders. For the said reasons, in our view, the delay in pocket (D) is also unreasonable. 15. It should be remembered that eternal vigilance is the price which the law expects from the Detaining and Sponsoring Authorities if they want their detention orders to be sustained by this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In their laxity, lies the liberty of the detenu and in the instant case, tax indeed have been, both the Detaining and Sponsoring Authorities. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, in our judgment, the delay of 5½ months in the issuance of the detention order has not been satisfactorily explained. We feel that on account of it, 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 has ceased to be preventive, as intended in law and has become punitive and consequently, has to be set aside. 17. In the result we allow this petition; quash and set aside the impugned detention order; direct that the petitioner-detenu be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case; and make the Rule absolute. Rule made absolute. -----