Vishnu Sahai, J. - (1.) Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Hari Prakash Singh alias Guddu has impugned the order dated 2.2.2001 passed by the third respondent Mr. Rafiq Ahmad Khan, Under Secretary, Grih Evam Gopan Vibhag, Government of U.P., Lucknow detaining him under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred as COFEPOSA). The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 2.2.2001 was executed on the petitioner-detenu on 7th April, 2002 and their true copies have been annexed to the petition.
(2.) The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu prompting the third respondent to issue the impugned detention order against the petitioner-detenu are contained in the grounds of detention but since, in our view, reference to them is not necessary for adjudication of the averments contained in paragraph 9 of the petition and those contained in the ground 14-C of the petition, on which alone this petition deserves to succeed, we are not adverting to them.
(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The substance of the averments contained in paragraph 9 of the petition and ground 14-C of the petition is that although the impugned detention order was issued as early as 2.2.2001 It was executed on the petitioner-detenu on 7th April, 2002 i.e. after an inordinate delay of more than 14 months. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu strongly contended that the inordinate delay in execution of the detention order has brought upon a three fold consequence-(a) the live link between the prejudicial activities of the detenu and the rationale of clamping a detention order on him has been snapped; (b) the genuineness of subjective satisfaction of third respondent to preventively detain the detenu has been rendered suspect; and (c) the detention order has ceased to be preventive, as intended in law, and instead has acquired a punitive character. To lend force to his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu invited our attention to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of SMF Sultan Abdul Kader v. Joint Secretary to Government of India and others, 1999 (38) ACC 88 (SC) wherein also on account of unexplained delay in execution of the detention order, the Apex Court struck down a preventive detention order by virtue of which the petitioner-detenu therein was detained under Section 3 (1) of COFEPOSA Act.;