According to the second respondent, this order of detention dated 21.8.1989 was received by the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur on 1.9.1989 who in turn directed the Circle Inspector of Police, Guruvayur to apprehend the warrantee and that the circle Inspector of Police reported the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur on 16th September, 2nd October, 13th November, 1989 and 5th January 1990 that the warrantee namely the detenu was reportedly working at Bombay and the chances of his visit to his native place were awaited.
Following the above order, the first respondent Union of India by its order dated 7.9.90 made a declaration under Section 9 i of the Act and thereafter passed an order under Section 10 of the Act that the detention shall companytinue for a period of 2 years from 9.8.90.
Despite the repeated orders of the S.P. dated 31st January, 12th and 19th February, 14th and 22nd March, 1990 directing the Circle Inspector to send reports about the companypliance of his direction in executing the warrant, the Inspector sent a reply on 30.3.1990 to the S.P. informing that the police officers were being sent to Bombay to arrest the warrantee i.e. the detenu .
The facts of the case disclose that the impugned order was passed on 21.8.1989 and it was executed only on 10.8.1990 that is nearly a delay of one year from the date of the passing of the detention order.
Not being satisfied with the reports of the Circle Inspector of Police, the S.P. by his letter dated 24.11.1989 directed the Circle Inspector of Police to arrange to secure the detenu and execute the detention order at Bombay with the assistance of the local police.
The Government has made a request to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take action under Section 7 1 a only on 14.5.1990 that is after a period of 9 months from the date of the passing of the detention order.
