Preventive detention service requirements failed where a thirty-year delay in execution was left unexplained and gazette publication was insufficient.

In preventive detention matters under COFEPOSA, an inordinate and unexplained delay in executing the detention order can vitiate the detention where the authorities do not show real efforts to trace the detenu or effect service. Mere gazette publication under section 7(1)(b), without evidence of further action or diligent enquiry, was treated as insufficient compliance on these facts. Applying the preventive detention principle that action must be timely and commensurate with the situation, and treating section 7 of the National Security Act as pari materia, the Court found the thirty-year delay unexplained and the service explanation inadequate, with the detention order set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the unexplained delay of about thirty years in executing the detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 vitiated the detention and whether publication under section 7(1)(b) of that Act by itself amounted to sufficient service or compliance.

Analysis: The detention order was passed in 1993 but executed only in 2023. The record showed only attempts at service at the available Mumbai address and a gazette publication after the detenu was not found there. No material showed that any real enquiry was made to trace his whereabouts, that all possible steps were taken to serve the order, or that any further action was taken after the gazette publication. The Court held that mere publication under section 7(1)(b) did not, on these facts, amount to sufficient compliance with service requirements or justify the long delay. Relying on the principle that preventive detention must be supported by timely action commensurate with the situation, and treating section 7 of the National Security Act, 1980 as pari materia, the Court found the delay unexplained and the authorities' explanation inadequate.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid due to inordinate and unexplained delay in execution, and the challenge succeeded in favour of the petitioner.

---