Delay in executing detention orders is not fatal where the detenu absconds and statutory steps are duly taken.

Under COFEPOSA, delay in executing a detention order does not by itself vitiate detention where the detenu is absconding or concealing himself and the authorities invoke the statutory machinery under Sections 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(b). The article notes that the authorities must first show prompt and genuine efforts to serve the order, but once a direction to appear is issued and not complied with, the burden shifts to the detenu to show that compliance was impossible and that the required intimation was given. On the stated facts, repeated attempts and statutory steps were taken, the delay was attributed to non-traceability, and the long delay did not invalidate the detention.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in executing the detention order was satisfactorily explained by the authorities. (ii) Whether the detention order was liable to be quashed merely because it was served after a long delay.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in executing the detention order was satisfactorily explained by the authorities.

Analysis: The detention order was issued under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The Court held that where the detenu is found to be absconding or concealing himself, the authorities may invoke Section 7(1)(a) and Section 7(1)(b) of the Act. The scheme of Section 7(1)(b) was read as placing an initial burden on the authorities to show prompt efforts to execute the order, but once a notified direction to appear is issued and the detenu fails to comply, the burden shifts to the detenu to establish that compliance was impossible and that the required intimation was given. On the facts, repeated attempts were made, statutory action was taken, and the delay was attributed to the detenu's non-traceability.

Conclusion: The delay was satisfactorily explained and was not attributable to any lack of diligence by the authorities.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention order was liable to be quashed merely because it was served after a long delay.

Analysis: The Court held that delay by itself does not vitiate detention where the detenu's own conduct makes execution difficult. A detenu cannot take advantage of his own wrong by remaining unavailable and then relying on the delay in service. The mandate of Article 22(5) was treated as satisfied on the facts because the authorities had taken all humanly possible steps to execute the order and had also proceeded under Section 7 of the Act.

Conclusion: The detention order was not liable to be quashed on the ground of delay.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the authorities' efforts to execute the detention order were found adequate, the statutory steps against an absconding detenu were properly taken, and the long delay in service did not invalidate the detention.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a detenu absconds or conceals himself and the authorities duly invoke the statutory machinery for absconding persons, delay in service of a detention order does not vitiate the order if the delay is satisfactorily explained and the detenu cannot establish availability for service.

---