Parekh, J. - (1.) This is a habeas corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against the order of the District Magistrate, Meerut, dated 15.5.1974, whereby the petitioner was detained under sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The impugned order was passed because the District Magistrate was satisfied that it was necessary to do so with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the supplies and services essential to the community. On 29th May, 1974, the grounds of detention were served on the petitioner under Section 8 of the said Act. Shorn of unnecessary wording of the grounds, the charge may be stated thus:- (1) That on 29.8.1970 when the Senior Marketing Inspector visited the shop of the petitioners he found that there was no entry of 22 quintals and 10 kgs. of Tara Mira in the stock register and that 30 bags of groundnut were found in excess and thus the petitioner committed breach of Clause 8 of the U.P. Oil Seeds and Oil Seed Products Control (Amendment) Order 1967 and of condition No. 1 of the licence issued under the said Order. For these irregularities a sum of Rupees 150/- were forfeited from the security deposit of the petitioner as a penalty. (2) That on 29.8.1970 when the Senior Marketing Inspector inspected the account books of the shop of the petitioner he found that on behalf of five persons, who were not authorised dealers, the foodgrains were purchased and thus a breach of U.P. Foodgrains Licensing Order and Condition No. 8 of the Licence was committed by the petitioner. (3) That on 8.4.1973 the Senior Marketing Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner and found that on different dates of the month of April 1973, different quantities of levy paid released free sale Bajra were shown in the stock whereas on the said dates the said Bajra was sent to Modinagar, Mowana and Khatauli. The Inspector also found that there was no rate-board in the shop. (4) That on 17.7.1973 the Senior Marketing Inspector inspected the shop of the petitioner and found that the cash-memos for the sale of 4617.99 quintals of Bajra did not bear the signatures of the customers. He also found some change having been made in the relevant records. In consequence thereof the Regional Food Controller. Meerut, suspended the commission agent's licence in Form F of the petitioner.
(2.) After service of the grounds of detention the petitioner submitted explanation. The explanation submitted by the petitioner need not detain us. Suffice it to say that the petitioner submitted explanation on each item of the charge and denied the same, but before the explanation could be considered and disposed of the petitioner rushed to this Court. However, the petitioner's explanation has now been rejected.
(3.) The main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the grounds on which the petitioner has been detained are based on events which took place in the years 1970 and 1973 and that between the past conduct or antecedent history and the impugned order there is considerable time lag. The time is ex facie long and the District Magistrate, Meerut, should explain the delay with a view to show that there was proximity between the prejudicial activity and the order. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the instant case the detaining authority has failed to explain this delay and this is a serious infirmity for which the detention order has to be set aside.;