JUDGMENT
Sahai, J.
1. By means of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 6th May, 1995 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay (respondent No. 1) detaining him under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.
2. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner have been detailed in the grounds of detention which were served on the petitioner on 9th May, 1995. The basis of the petitioner’s detention in the aforesaid grounds appear to be three incidents in each of which the petitioner was involved.
(i) The first is alleged to have taken place on 9th January 1994, on the basis of which C.R. No. 16/94 at police station Kurla under section 302/34 IPC read with section 3, 25, 27 of the Arms Act read with section 37(a)(i) of the Bombay Police Act was registered;
(ii) The second incident is alleged to have taken place on 6th May, 1994 and on the basis of the same, C.R. No. 203/94 under section 387, read with 34 IPC was registered next day (on 7th May, 1994) at 3 p.m. at police station, Dadar; and
(iii) The third incident pertains to recovery of a revolver from the possession of the petitioner and that recovery is said to have been made on 4th July, 1994. On its basis, a case under section, 3, 25 of the Arms Act was registered at police station, Dadar against the petitioner.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The main submission canvassed by Mr. Raja Thakare learned counsel for the petitioner before us is that the inordinate delay in the issuance of the detention order has snapped the live link between the alleged prejudicial activity and the proposed preventive detention. This submission is based on ground no.(m). at page 12 of the petition. The substance of the aforesaid ground and of the contention of Mr. Thakare is that in between the third incident which took place on 6th July, 1994 and the date of the issuance of the detention order which was 6th May, 1995, a delay of full ten months had occasioned and this inordinate delay of ten months which is unexplained snaps the live link between the alleged prejudicial activity of the petitioner and the proposed detention order.
4. The aforesaid ground taken in the petition referred to in the preceding paragraphs has been replied to in paragraph 11 of the return filed by the respondent no. 1. It would be useful to reproduce that paragraph in entirety. It reads thus :-
Paragraph 11 :
“With reference to the paras 7(d), 7(e) of the petition, I say that the first incident (C.R. No. 16/94) was on 8-1-1994. After commission of the incident, detenu was at large. He was involved in another offence which took place on 6-5-95, registered vide C.R. No. 203/94. On 4-7-94 an information was received that the detenu would be visiting Bhiku Building, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi. Accordingly a trap was arranged and the detenu was arrested at 00.50 hrs. on 5-7-94. He was searched in the presence of panchas and a revolver was found in the possession of the detenu and therefore, LAC no. 929/1994 came to be registered under section 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act. In C.R. No. 203/94 and LAC No. 929/94 the detenu was shown arrested on 5-7-94 in which he was ordered to be released on bail on 18-7-94. He did not avail of the bail facility. On 18-7-94 his custody was taken by the Kurla police Station and the detenu was shown arrested in C.R. No. 16/94. In the meantime. On 17-9-94, the Sponsoring Authority collected necessary documents and submitted the proposal to me through proper channel. The proposal was first scrutinized by Senior Police Inspector of Dadar Police Station, Bombay. It was then placed before the ACP Mahim Division, on the same day i.e. 17-9-94 who cleared it and placed the proposal before the DCP Zone IV, on the same day. The DCP Zone IV, recommended the proposal and further submitted it to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Central Region on 19-9-94, who also recommended it on the same day. It was then sent to the Senior Police Inspector, PCB CID Mumbai who scrutinised the proposal and the documents and then forwarded it to the Selection Grade Police Prosecutor on 17-11-1994 for his opinion. The Selection Grade Police Prosecutor scrutinised the documents and returned the proposal file along with his legal opinion on 23-11-94. The proposal was then placed before the ACP CB(P) on 28-11-94, who recommended it on the same day. It was then placed before the DCP CB(P) on 6-12-94 who recommended it on the same day. It was then sent to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) who recommended it on 5-12-94 and submitted it to the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) who recommended it on 17-12-94. It was then submitted to me on 19-12-94 and on the same day, I began scrutiny of the proposal and made certain queries and returned the file. Necessary clarification was obtained and the proposal was then placed before the Additional C.P. (Crime) who scrutinised it on 27-1-95 and forwarded it to the DCP(CB)(P) with certain directions. The DCP CB(P) scrutinised it again on 301-1-95 and returned it to the Senior Police Inspector, PCB for compliance, who again placed it before DCP CB(P) on 29-3-95. It was then submitted to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) on 3-4-95. Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) placed it before me on 4-4-95. I minutely scrutinised the proposal and also the clarifications to my queries. I then forwarded the proposal to the Senior Police Inspector PCB, CID on the same day for further process. Senior Police Inspector, PCB, CID, submitted it to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) on 27-4-95. The Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) submitted it to me on 28-4-95. On 28-4-95 I raised a further query and sent the proposal to DCP CB(P) who with his noting and the directions sent the proposal to Sr. Police Inspector on 2-5-95. The Sr. Police Inspector PCB, CID made the necessary inquiry and with his detailed report placed the file before DCP (CB) Preventive on 6-5-95. On 6-5-95 the matter was again placed on my table. I carefully scrutinised all the clarifications furnished by the officers involved in processing the proposal. After I was satisfied that all queries had been properly answered, I formulated the grounds of detention and issued the detention order on 6-5-95. Thus it is clear that there is no delay in issuing the order of detention. If any time, was taken, it was because the documents had to be scrutinised at various levels so as to ensure that there is full compliance of the requirements of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, of the case, the time taken to issue the order of detention is reasonable and necessary for the full and proper consideration of the matter. In any event, looking to the propensity of the detenu to indulge in similar prejudicial activities in future, it cannot be said that live link is snapped.”
5. A perusal of paragraph 11 of the return filed by the respondent no. 1 clearly shows that atleast at three stages, the respondent no. 1 has not explained the delay in issuance of the detention order. In paragraph 11, the respondent no. 1 at one place has urged that the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crimes) on 27-1-1995 after scrutinising the proposal forwarded it to the DCP CB(P) with certain directions. The DCP CB(P) scrutinised it again on 30-1-1995 and returned it to the Senior Inspector of Police, PCB for compliance, who, again placed it before the DCP CB(P) on 29-3-1995. In the aforesaid paras, it has not been mentioned as to when the Senior Inspector of Police, PCB received the file and what all and on what dates he did after receiving the same. Again in the aforesaid para, we find that it has been mentioned that proposal was submitted to the Additional Commissioner on 3-4-1995 and the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) placed it before the deponent respondent no. 1 on 4-4-1995. No details as to what the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crimes) did, in the aforesaid period of one month have been furnished in the return. Again we find that in this para, it has been mentioned that before the respondent no. 1, the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crimes) placed the proposal on 4-4-1995 and on the same day, he forwarded the same for further processing. Again it appears that the Senior Inspector of Police submitted it to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crimes) on 27-4-1995. No details of what the Senior Inspector of Police did between 4-4-95 and 27-4-95 have been furnished in the return.
6. From a perusal of the dates mentioned in the preceding paras, it would become crystal clear that at least at three stages, there has been undue and unexplained delay in connection with the proposal regarding detention of the petitioner. A perusal of paragraph 11 further shows that even prior to 27-1-1995, there was some delay but, since the same is not as glaring as the delay referred to above, we are not taking the same into consideration.
In the case of ‘Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra’ the Apex Court has observed thus (Para 6) :-
“Delay ipso facto in passing an order of detention after an incident is not fatal to the detention of a person, for in certain cases delay may be unavoidable and reasonable. What is required by law is that the delay must be satisfactorily examined by the detaining authority.”
7. In the instant case, after examining the averments made in paragraph 11 of the return filed by the respondent no. 1, it cannot be said that the delay in issuing the detention order has been satisfactorily explained by the detaining authority.
As mentioned earlier, between the third and the last prejudicial activity, necessitating the issuance of the detention order and the date on which the detention order was issued, there is a time lag of full ten months. Considering this time lag and the fact that no plausible explanation has been furnished by the respondent no. 1, in his return for the same, particularly for the period 30-1-95 to 6-1-95 (sic), we are inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner namely that on account of the unexplained delay in the issuance of the impugned order of detention, the live link between the alleged prejudicial activity and the proposed preventive detention has been snapped and therefore, the impugned detention order is unsustainable in law.
8. Pursuant to the above discussion, we find that the detention order dated 6th May 1995 passed by the respondent no. 1 detaining the petitioner under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 cannot be sustained in law and consequently, we quash the same and direct that the petitioner be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case.
Rule issued earlier is made absolute.
9. Petition allowed.