facts of the matter, as is evident from the present Writ Petition challenging an order of detention dated 1st March, 2001 it appears that the petitioner is presently confined in Central Prison and it is this detention which the petitioner contended is without the authority of law and constitute an infringement of his guaranteed fundamental rights. The reason for detention has been and as recorded by the Department is that the Bill of Entry No.235337 dated 19.7.2000 was filed in the name of E Enterprises for clearance of 300 numbers of ACER CD ROM drive 50X by Customs House Agents, C1. According to the Department this Bill of Entry was filed in the name of E Enterprises but the latter expressly intimated the department stating that they did not place any order for import purposes. The department made an investigation and the goods were seized. The total CIF value according to the department was Rs.43,53,189/- and Rs.57,87,200/- was the market value. The petitioner appeared before the Customs Department on 24.7.2000 and the officers detained him and obtained the statements and was subsequently arrested on 25.7.2000 for an offence. The principal allegation against the petitioner/detenu being misdeclaration in the Bill of Entry. The petitioner/detenu however was remanded to judicial custody on 26.7.2000. Subsequently, the detenu was enlarged on bail by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 11.8.2000. The Department after the completion of investigation issued a show-cause notice.  Significantly, though the incident noticed above took place on 24.7.2000 and other important documents have come into existence immediately thereafter, the detaining authority did not pass the detention order immediately but only after a lapse of about seven months, i.e. on 1.3.2000. During this interregnum, however, the detenu admittedly did not indulge in any illegal activities and it is on this context P1, learned advocate appearing in support of the petition with his usual eloquence contended that the incident of 24th July, 2000 had become stale and irrelevant and it is too remote in point of time and as such question of there being any detention order on the basis thereof would not arise. P1 further contended upon reference to the fact situation as adverted herein before in this judgment that the detenu was arrested on 25.7.2000 for offences and was remanded to judicial custody on 26.7.2000. The detenu was however enlarged on bail by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EO.III) on 11.8.2000 and the Department after completing the investigation issued the required show-cause notice on 19.9.2000. The factual score thus lends a substantial credence to the submissions of P1 as regards the charges being too stale to be taken recourse to in the matter of issuance of the order of detention on 1st March, 2001 more so, having regard to the admitted factum of non-involvement of the detenu in any illegal activity and thus consequently too remote as well in point of time to be the basis of an order of detention. It is in elaboration of his submissions P1 contended that once the show-cause notice has been issued, there cannot be any manner of doubt that the investigation is complete, but in the contextual facts the detaining authority has failed to apply its mind as regards the issue of unreasonable delay in passing the order of detention.