Satisfactory explanation for delay in executing a detention order defeats challenge to quashing on that ground

Delay in executing a detention order was held satisfactorily explained where authorities acted promptly, repeatedly tried to trace the detenu, used the look out cell, published information on the police website, and issued notice under Section 7(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA Act. The delay was not attributed to lack of diligence by the authorities, and the explanation for the time taken to execute the order was accepted. The challenge to quash the detention order on this ground therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in execution of the detention order was properly explained and whether the detention order was liable to be quashed on that ground.

Analysis: The detention order was issued and attempts were made to execute it promptly, but the detenu was not found at the stated address. Repeated attempts were made to trace him, the matter was placed in the look out cell, the information was published on the police website, and a notification under Section 7(1)(b) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was issued. The Court found that the delay was not attributable to lack of diligence on the part of the authorities and that the circumstances explained the time taken to execute the order.

Conclusion: The delay in execution of the detention order was satisfactorily explained and the challenge to the detention order failed.

---