Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. The order dated 5. 2007, passed by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.20/2007, branding the detenu, by name Bilal, as a Goonda and directing his detention under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), is challenged in this writ petition by the brother of the detenu. 2. On 31. 2007 at about 8.00 hours, one K.Cholan lodged a complaint to the Head Constable, Kunnam Police Station, stating that he is working as Village Administrative Officer, and on 30.1.2007 night, on the basis of reliable source that one unidentified person with multiple injuries on his body and a two wheeler bearing No.TN 09-F 8510 was found on the road at Vasishtapuram Village, he rushed to the spot and on enquiry it revealed that in that areas a bomb blast had taken place and in that bomb blast, an unidentified person sustained grievous injuries. On that basis a case in Crime No.16 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 286 IPC., read with 3,5 and 6(A) of Indian Explosive Substances Act, 1908, was registered on the file of the Kunnam Police Station. The Inspector of Police, Kunnam Police Station took up investigation, rushed to the scene of crime, sent the injured person to the Government Hospital, Perambalur and on the basis of confession statement of the detenu, arrested him on 2. 2007 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, who remanded the detenu into custody. 3. The second respondent, taking note of the above case as a ground case and taking into consideration one another adverse case of similar nature pending against the detenu and having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health, ordered his detention dubbing him as a Goonda. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that when the detenu was arrested on 2. 2007, the detaining authority passed the order of detention only on 5. 2007, after a delay of 92 days and therefore, the said delay vitiates the order of detention. 5. Admittedly, the detenu was arrested on 2. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that when the detenu was arrested on 2. 2007, the detaining authority passed the order of detention only on 5. 2007, after a delay of 92 days and therefore, the said delay vitiates the order of detention. 5. Admittedly, the detenu was arrested on 2. 2007 in Crime No.16 of 2007 on the file of Kunnam Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 286 IPC r/w.3,5 and 6(A) of Indian Explosive Substances Act, 1908. However, the order of detention was passed only on 5. 2007. Concededly, there is a delay of 92 days in passing the order of detention. 6. It is settled law that when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, the Court has to scrutinise whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned, when called upon to answer and further the Court has to investigate whether the casual connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case. Further, when such delay is unsatisfactory and unexplained, the same would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority leading to a legitimate inference that the detaining authority was not really and genuinely satisfied as regards the necessity for detaining the detenu with a view to prevent him from acting in a prejudicial manner. 7. In the instant case, the delay of 92 days in passing the order of detention has not been explained satisfactorily. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the said delay vitiates the impugned order of detention. Accordingly, the order of detention is quashed. The habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.