JUDGMENT 1. This petition in the nature of habeas corpus is directed against the order of detention bearing No. DMS/PSA/60/2021 dated 18.10.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, whereby the petitioner has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the State. 2. The impugned order of detention has been passed by the District Magistrate keeping in view the activities of the petitioner fully detailed in the grounds of detention appended with the petition as Annexure III. Besides giving the narration of the adverse activities of the petitioner, there is reference to registration of three FIRs, i.e. FIR No. 05/2007 and FIR No. 163/2010 registered in Police Station Handwara and FIR No. 108/2006 registered in Police Station Kralgund. The petitioner is alleged to be an over ground worker of TRF, an organization indulging in violent activities with an aim to secede the territory of J&K from India. The primary reason for putting the petitioner under detention, as is indicated in the grounds of detention, is that normal law of the country has failed to deter the petitioner from indulging in subversive activities. 3. The impugned order is assailed by the petitioner inter alia on the following grounds:- (i) That there has been inordinate delay in executing the order of detention passed on 18.10.2021. It is submitted that the order of detention was executed only on 21.12.2021 though the petitioner was all along available in the Valley; (ii) That the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate did not receive the approval by the Government within the period of 12 days, and, therefore, the impugned order outlived its life after the expiry of 12 days from the date of its issuance; (iii) That the detenue was not supplied the requisite material viz. dossier, copies of the FIRs and other connected documents relied upon by the detaining authority, for placing the detenue under preventive detention; (iv) Absent the service of requisite material, the petitioner was deprived of his right to make an effective representation; (v) That petitioner only knows Kashmiri language and the grounds of detention were in English and the same were not read over and explained to him in Kashmir language. This has deprived the petitioner from knowing the grounds of detention and making an effective representation there against; (vi) That the petitioner was not apprised of his right to make a representation to the District Magistrate or to the Government, as is mandated by law. 4. Per contra, the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the District Magistrate, Srinagar indicates that the respondents took the petitioner into preventive custody after completing all requisite formalities envisaged under law. It is claimed by the District Magistrate that all the requisite material was supplied to the petitioner and he was also informed to make a representation against his detention to the Detaining Authority as well as to the Government. However, the petitioner did not avail of that opportunity and choose not to file any representation. It is thus submitted that in the absence of petitioner's having filed any representation, no prejudice has been caused to him in any manner by non-supply of relevant material. There is, however, no direct reply to the plea of the petitioner that there was inordinate delay in executing the order of detention nor has it been averred anywhere in the reply affidavit as to why there was delay in execution of the detention order. There is also no specific reply as to how there is proximate link between the activities of the petitioner indicated in the three FIRs registered in the year 2006, 2007 and 2010 respectively with the order of detention passed in the year 2021. 5. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder, controverting the averments made by the District Magistrate in his reply affidavit. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the view that this petition is liable to succeed on the ground that the respondent-Detaining Authority, has failed to explain the delayed execution of the impugned order of detention. 7. Indisputably, the order of detention was passed on 18.10.2021 and was executed on 21.12.2021. This is specifically averred by the petitioner in para 5 of the petition, but there is no reply in rebuttal filed by the Detaining Authority. 7. Indisputably, the order of detention was passed on 18.10.2021 and was executed on 21.12.2021. This is specifically averred by the petitioner in para 5 of the petition, but there is no reply in rebuttal filed by the Detaining Authority. As a matter of fact, the District Magistrate in his reply affidavit has conveniently avoided to indicate the date of execution of warrant of detention though he submits that the warrant of detention was executed by SI Sirajudin of Police Station Safakadal and the detenue was handed over to Superintendent District Jail Baramulla. It is also not forthcoming from the reply affidavit that the activities the detenue indulged in the year 2006, 2007 and 2010, for which he was booked in three FIRs, are relevant and have proximate and live link with the impugned order of detention. This Court has already dealt with the issue elaborately in the case of Shabir Ahmad Malik v. UT of J&K and anr, 2022 (2) JKJ (HC) 182. Para 34 of the judgment is relevant and is reproduced hereunder:- '34. The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Nevertheless, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of the 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 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. Verily, there is no cogent explanation coming forth from perusal of the grounds of detention as regards live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention and as a result whereof the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. Reference in this regard is made to T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala (1989) 4 SCC 741 and Rajinder Arora v. Union of India and others (2006) 4 SCC 796 .' 8. Reference in this regard is made to T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala (1989) 4 SCC 741 and Rajinder Arora v. Union of India and others (2006) 4 SCC 796 .' 8. Regarding delay in execution of detention order, suffice it to say that in the absence of any clear stand taken by the respondents regarding their having made serious efforts to execute the order of detention and apprehend the petitioner forthwith, the detention cannot be justified if the execution of the detention order is inordinately delayed. 9. In the instant case, as noticed above, the respondents have made no efforts to explain the delay in execution of the order of detention. That apart, respondents have also failed to produce the record to demonstrate that the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority for issuance of the order of detention against the petitioner, was ever supplied to the petitioner. From reading of the impugned order of detention it clearly transpires that the order of detention, the grounds of detention and copies of the FIRs were endorsed to the Superintendent, District Jail, Baramulla for the service upon the petitioner. The petitioner has specifically denied having received any of the documents and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Detaining Authority to produce the detention record to substantiate its plea taken in the reply affidavit that all the requisite material relied upon by the Detaining Authority was supplied to the petitioner. Absent the service of requisite material upon the petitioner, it was not possible for the petitioner to make an effective representation against his detention either to the Detaining Authority or to the Government. Whether the impugned order of detention was approved by the Government; whether the case of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board for opinion; and whether it was ultimately confirmed by the Government, could have been seen only from the original detention records, which, in the instant case was not produced by the respondents for reasons best known to them. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I find merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned order of detention is quashed with a direction to the respondents to release the detenue forthwith, if not required in any other case.