Appeal No 43 of 1982
From the Judgment and Order dated 7121979 of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No 1754 of 1979
AND Writ Petition Civil No 265 of 1980
Under Article 32 of the Constitution
PK Pillai for the Appellant
RK Maheswari for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA J
The petitioner claims exemption under section 1154a of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 from the liability of paying general tax leviable under the said section
The case of the petitioner is that it is a non profit making registered society and its object is to organize and run schools in Delhi and elsewhere with a view to promote education and welfare
Accordingly it is running a school with the name of General Raj s School in Delhi in a building constructed for that purpose
A demand was made by the appropriate authority of the Municipal Corporation for payment of general tax under the Act and the exemption claimed by the petitioner was rejected
In this situation the petitioner moved the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate relief
The writ peti tion was dismissed in limine by the following order The only question that arises for consideration is whether the School run by the Society falls within the ambit of clause 4 of Section 115 of the Delhi Municipal Corpora tion Act
Reading this section it is obvious that exemption for levy for general tax could be granted if the Society which is running the school was a Society for charitable purposes
Charitable purpose is defined in the explana tion to clause 4 of Section 115
No doubt the School is impart 68 ing education but in order to qualify for exemption it had to give education and medi cal relief
Admittedly fees are charged from students
Mere imparting of education cannot be called giving relief
We therefore find nothing wrong with the stand taken by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Dismissed
 The present Civil Appeal by special leave is directed against this judgment
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the language of section 1154a quoted below it is not correct to suggest that to qualify for exemption from the tax liability it is necessary for a society to offer medical relief a lands and buildings or por tions of lands and buildings exclusively occupied and used for public worship or by a society or body for a charitable purpose Provided that such society or body is supported wholly or in part by voluntary contributions applies its profits if any or other income in promoting its objects and does not pay any dividend or bonus to its members
Explanation Charitable purpose includes relief of the poor education and medical relief but does not include a purpose which relates exclusively to religious teach ing The argument is well founded
The test of charitable pur pose  is satisfied by the proof of any of the three condi tions namely relief of the poor education or medical relief
The fact that some fee is charged from the students is also not decisive inasmuch as the proviso indicates that the expenditure incurred in running the society may be supported either wholly or in part by voluntary contribu tions
Besides the explanation is in terms inclusive and not exhaustive
The impugned judgment must therefore be held to be erroneous
Mr B Sen the learned counsel representing the respondent Municipal Corporation contended that although he is not in a position to support the reasoning given by the High Court the petitioner is for other reasons not entitled to the exemption claimed and the High Court s judgment is therefore correct
He urged that in view of the 69 relevant facts and circumstances in the case as is evident by the assessment order the claim of the petitioner that its purpose is charitable cannot be accepted
Since the High Court has not adverted to the facts of the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties and has not expressed its opinion on the other aspects of the case we are of the view that the case should go back on remand to it for fresh decision
During the pendency of the case in this Court the parties have filed further affidavits
It will be open to them to file additional affidavits and other materi als in support of their respective cases
This however they should do within one month from today so that the case which is an old one may be disposed of expeditiously
Civil Misc
Petition No 11315 of 1989 has not been pressed and is therefore dismissed and the Writ Petition No 265 of 1980 is permitted to be withdrawn as prayed for on behalf of the petitioner
Civil Appeal No 43 of 1982 is allowed and the case is remitted to the High Court for fresh decision in the light of the observations made above
There will be no order as to costs of this Court
In view of the urgent nature of the case the High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as may be possible
SS Appeal al lowed


Summary:
This appeal has been filed by the brother of the detenu TA Sirajudeen who was detained pursuant to an order of detention passed by the first respondent under Section 31iii and 31iv of the Conservation of Foreign Ex change and Smuggling Activities Act 1974 with a view to preventing the said detenu to take part in the smuggling activities of Gold
The circumstances under which the deten tion order in question was passed may now be stated
On 30111986 Superintendent of Central Excise Manjeri Range searched the residential premises of the detenu but did not discover any contraband goods
However on question ing the detenu confessed that he had burried eleven gold biscuits in the back yard which were recovered after dig ging the ground and the statement of the detenu was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act that very day
On 9121986 again the Authorities concerned searched the residence of the detenu in the belief that there was concealment of more gold
During the search the detenu pointed out to the Superintendent one packet which had been placed in the thatched roofing of the house
The detaining authority taking into consideration the fact of seizure effected on two occasions and the statement of the detenu admitting his involvement in the prejudicial activities mentioned in the grounds of detention reached subjective satisfaction and passed the impugned order of detention on 71087
The detenu was arrested on 1811988 and detained in Central Prison Trivandrum from 1911988 onwards Grounds of detention and other relevant material were furnished to the detenu on 2111988
The detenu made representation for revocation of the detention order on 2511988 which was rejected 946 on 1141988
The first respondent made a reference under Section 8 of the Act on 5588 to the Advisory Board which reported that in its opinion sufficient cause existed for the detention of the detenu
The appellant challenged the detention of his brother in the High Court by means of Writ Petition but having failed he filed this appeal by special leave
The appellant primarily urged two contentions before this Court
It was urged that there was no proximity in time to provide a rational nexus between the alleged prejudicial activity and the passing of the impugned order of detention after 11 months ie on 71087 and as there was no reasona ble and satisfactory explanation for the said long delay the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the credible chain between the grounds of the alleged criminal activities and the purpose of detention stood snapped
The delay throws doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authori ty
Secondly it was contended that the representation sub mitted by the detenu on 25188 challenging the impugned order clamped on him had been disposed of by a delay of 72 days ie on 11488 and this long and avoidable delay vitiates the detention order being violative of article 225 of the Constitution
The first respondent in the counter affidavit explained the delay and attributed the same to the extensive search of various premises in different places and examination of persons apart from departmental delays
It is only after completing the necessary investigation customs authorities sponsored the case for detention of the detenu
Allowing the appeal this Court HELD There is no denying the fact that the impugned order has been passed after lapse of 11 months from the date of seizure of the eleven gold biscuits from the back court yard of the house of the detenu
The test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number of months between the offending acts and the order of deten tion
However when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activity and the passing of the detention order the court has to scrutinise whether the detaining authority has satisfactionly examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned and further the court has to investi gate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case
No hard and fast rule 947 can precisely be formulated and guidelines can be laid down in that behalf
951G 952A When there is unsatisfactory and unexplained delay between the date of the order of detention and the date of securing the arrest of the detenu such a delay would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority
954C See Gora vs State of West Bengal   Hemlata Kantilal Shah vs State of Maharashtra   Golam Hussain  Gamal vs Commr of Police of Calcutta  Ors   sk Serajul vs State of West Bengal  Rekhaben Virendra Karadia vs State of Gujarat  Ors   Harnek Singh vs State of Punjab   Shiv Ratan Makin vs Union of India and Others  Smt
K Aruna Kumari vs Gov ernment of Andhra Pradesh  Ors  and Rajendra Kumar Natvarlal Shah vs State of Gujarat  Ors  The Court in the instant case noticed from the Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first Respondent that the detaining authority has attempted to explain the laxity that has occasioned in passing the impugned order but miserably failed in explaining the delay of three months in securing the arrest of the detenu from the date of passing of the order and keeps stunned silence on that score
Counsel when queried by the Court whether he could give any reason for this undue delay in arresting the detenu on 1811988 in pursuance of the impugned order made on 7101987 frankly admitted that he could not do so
Under the circumstances the Court held that leaving apart the question of delay in passing the order of detention the fact remains that the detaining authority has failed to explain the long delay in securing the arrest of the detenu after three months of the passing of the detention order and this non explanation throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the sub jective satisfaction of the detaining authority vitiating the validity of the order of detention
954E 955A The long interval in receipt of the representation and the comments of the Collector of Customs Cochin indicate the casual and indifferent attitude displayed by the au thorities concerned dealing with the representation
The manner in which the representation has been dealt with reveals a sorry state of affairs in the consideration of the representation made by the detenu
955G 956A 948 The Court took firm view that the representation of the detenu has not been given prompt and expeditious considera tion and was allowed to lie without being properly attended to
The delay of 72 days in the absence of satisfactory explanation is too long a period for ignoring the indolence on the part of the concerned authority
The unexplained delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu is violative of Article 225 of the Constitution of India rendering the order of detention invalid
956H 957B The Court set aside the judgment of the High Court quashed the order of detention and directed that the detenu be set at liberty forthwith
957C Rama Dhondu Borade vs Shri VK Saraf Commissioner of Police  Ors