ORDER : Altamas Kabir, J. Leave granted. On 28-12-2001, the applicant was arrested by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence at Mumbai on the allegation that he, along with one Yusuf Dhanani, had fraudulently prepared bills of lading and cheated the Revenue of a huge amount. 2. On 2-1-2002, the appellant was admitted to bail by the High Court. On 22-2-2002, Yusuf Dhanani was arrested and thereafter detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "COFEPOSA"). The order of bail granted to the appellant was challenged in this Court by the State but such challenge was rejected. In between, on 19-3-2002 an order of detention was also passed against the appellant under the aforesaid provisions of the COFEPOSA Act. 3. It appears that the order of detention could not be executed against the appellant and in July 2006, the appellant challenged the same before the Delhi High Court and while the matter was pending, the appellant and the other detenu approached the Settlement Commission appointed under the Customs Act, 1962 on 13-7-2007 and, ultimately, the matter was settled by an order passed by the Settlement Commission on 11-9-2007. 4. In the said order of the Settlement Commission it was also observed that immunity from prosecution could not be granted to the appellant without imposing conditions, and, accordingly, while granting immunity the Settlement Commission took note of the fact that dues amounting to Rs 7,64,224 had been deposited. An additional penalty of Rs 50,000 was also imposed by the said Settlement Commission, against which the appellant moved the High Court in its writ jurisdiction and the matter was ultimately remitted to the Settlement Commission which set aside its own order insofar as the penalty was concerned. 5. Subsequently, the appellant moved the High Court against the order of detention and the same was disposed of with an observation that the petition was not maintainable at the pre-arrest stage and it was not open to the appellant to challenge the detention order on the grounds raised till such time as it was served or executed on the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has moved the present appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has moved the present appeal. 6. There is no dispute that despite the fact that the order of detention was passed as far back as on 19-3-2002, the same could not be or has not been executed against the appellant till date. The detention order was in respect of the activities indulged in or said to have been indulged in by the appellant as far back as in 2002. In fact, on behalf of the Union of India it has been very fairly submitted on instruction that since the order of detention was passed, the appellant has not indulged in similar activities. 7. Having regard to the above, we are of the view that continuing the order of detention today is an exercise in futility and the same should not, therefore, be given effect to any further. This will not prevent the respondents in future to pass any similar order in the event similar allegations are raised against the appellant. 8. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of and the order passed by the High Court is, consequently, set aside.