ORDER : We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties. 2. The issue under consideration revolves around the detention order dated 11th August, 2005. The petitioner ventured to assail the above detention order, prior to his arrest. In fact, he approached this Court, by filing a writ petition in the year 2006. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, an interim order was passed on 7th March, 2007, which is extracted hereunder : "Rule Nisi. In view of letter circulated by learned counsel for the respondent seeking time for filing counter affidavit, the matter is adjourned by one week. In the meanwhile, the respondent-State shall not give effect to the order of detention." 3. It is not a matter of dispute, that consequent upon the passing of the above motion Bench order on 7th March, 2007, the petitioner has never been arrested. The instant writ petition has been pending for the last more than 10 years. It is not the case of the respondents, that the petitioner indulged in any untoward activity, whilst the instant petition was pending before this Court, and whilst the petitioner was a free citizen, enjoying absolute liberty. In the above view of the matter, there can hardly be any justification, for sustaining the detention order dated 11th August, 2005. 4. Besides the inference drawn hereinabove, it is also pertinent to notice, that the final order also came to be passed with reference to the detention order. In this behalf, it is necessary to mention, that in response to the show cause notice (dated 25-7-2005) issued to the petitioner, he approached the Settlement Commission, Mumbai. The Settlement Commission passed an order dated 14th November, 2006, completely exonerating the petitioner from any involvement. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner, has invited our attention to Paragraph 21.3 of the order of the Settlement Commission dated 11th November, 2006, which is extracted hereunder : "21.3. From the settlement application filed by the applicants and co-applicants we find that no allegation of any conscious knowledge can be attributed to Shri Pradeep Ambre. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner, has invited our attention to Paragraph 21.3 of the order of the Settlement Commission dated 11th November, 2006, which is extracted hereunder : "21.3. From the settlement application filed by the applicants and co-applicants we find that no allegation of any conscious knowledge can be attributed to Shri Pradeep Ambre. Infact, it is surprising that though the allegation of import of Ball Bearings in the guise of Borax Decahydrate in the past is levelled, any statement of Customs Officer who examined and allowed clearance of the said past consignments has not even been recorded by DRI, nor any allegation against the examining officer for abetting has been levelled in the show cause notice, in absence of which it is not possible to even assume the probability of clearance of Ball Bearings in the guise of Borax Decahydrate. It is evident from the show cause notice itself that even the seized consignments were opened and examined only after interception by DRI. Moreover, neither even a single piece of ball bearings alleged to be present in the past consignments was found in any warehouse, nor any instance of sale of any bearing has been established. In these circumstances, we, therefore, hold that even on the basis of preponderance of probability the allegation of import of Ball Bearings in the guise of Borax Decahydrate in the past consignments is not established and that all allegations levelled against Shri Pradeep Ambre are baseless and unfounded." (emphasis is ours) 5. Having perused the inferences and conclusions drawn by the Settlement Commission, as has been noticed in the paragraph extracted hereinabove, we are of the view, that the detention order dated 11th August, 2005, was even otherwise improper and unjustified in view of the factual position recorded in Paragraph [21.3] above. 6. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the detention order dated 11th August, 2005, passed against the petitioner is hereby set aside. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.