Court quashes lookout notice post-detention order invalidation, citing lack of statutory basis.

The Court quashed the lookout notice issued against the petitioner after the detention order was invalidated. The Court found that the continued operation of the lookout notice infringed the petitioner's rights, especially considering the lack of statutory basis post the quashing of the detention order. Despite the petitioner's actions, the Court emphasized that the lookout notice was unauthorized by law and caused undue harassment, ordering its quashing in favor of the petitioner. The Court highlighted that lack of cooperation post-adjudication could not justify unauthorized actions, ensuring the petitioner's rights were upheld.

---

---

Issues:
1. Continuation of lookout notice against petitioner after detention order quashed.
2. Legality of continued operation of lookout notice infringing petitioner's rights.
3. Co-operation of petitioner in proceedings post detention order quashed.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner raised concerns regarding the continued existence of a lookout notice issued against him on 1-9-2010 by the respondent even after the detention order against him was quashed by the Court on 30-4-2013. The original detention order was based on allegations of smuggling articles valued over Rs. 24.68 crores. The petitioner was eventually arrested on 1-12-2012 and challenged the detention order through Article 226 proceedings. The Court found that the failure to inform the detaining authority about the retraction of the petitioner's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act vitiated the detention order, leading to its quashing.

2. Despite the quashing of the detention order, the petitioner argued that the continued operation of the lookout notice infringed his right to travel abroad and his overall enjoyment of life. The respondent contended that the petitioner's actions, including recording a fresh inculpatory statement on 6-8-2010 after the retraction of the initial statement, justified the lookout notice. However, the Court noted that the rationale for the lookout notice, facilitating the detention order under COFEPOSA, ceased to exist after the detention order was quashed. The Court emphasized that the lookout notice caused harassment to individuals desiring to travel, especially abroad, and found no independent statutory power enabling its issuance post the quashing of the detention order. The Court held that the lookout notice was unauthorized by law and ordered its quashing, allowing the writ petition in favor of the petitioner.

3. The Court considered the petitioner's cooperation in proceedings post the quashing of the detention order. While acknowledging that enforcement proceedings for penalties and duty recovery were available to Customs authorities, the Court emphasized that lack of cooperation post-adjudication could not justify actions not authorized by law. The Court concluded that the lookout notice, lacking statutory basis post the quashing of the detention order, had to be quashed, ensuring the petitioner's rights were upheld.

---