The petitioner Keshav Madhav Vaibhat challenged a detention order dated 02.01.2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Jalna, under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act, 1981, detaining him for 12 months as a 'sand smuggler'. The petitioner argued that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of over six months between the last alleged prejudicial activities (June 2025) and the passing of the detention order (January 2026), that the crimes relied upon were registered during his externment period, and that the in-camera witness statements were vague. The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) found that the delay was unexplained at multiple stages — from recording of confidential witness statements to forwarding the proposal — and that the detaining authority failed to consider the prior externment order or its insufficiency. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi v. State of Manipur (2010) 9 SCC 618, the Court held that such unexplained delay snaps the live link between the prejudicial activities and the detention order, vitiating the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.