2019 (6) TMI 105 - HC - Customs

Principles of natural justice - challenges the look-out - according to respondents, they are compelled to take recourse to this inconvenient extreme step against the petitioner, for the petitioner is either acting too intelligent or with tactical reasons not co-operate with the investigation into offences investigated by the Department - HELD THAT - As a matter of fact, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner pursuant to a notice recently issued by the respondents is appearing before the authorities in the inquiry scheduled to be held today and would co-operate with the respondents and the look out circular impugned in the writ petition ought to be recalled. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances and particularly the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit, this Court directs the first respondent to consider the necessity of continuing the look-out notice or not and if the respondents are satisfied with the co-operation extended by the petitioner, pass orders and communicate the decision so taken within two weeks from today, to the petitioner. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to lookout notice as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

In this case, the petitioner challenged the lookout notice issued by the respondents, alleging it to be illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner raised factual and legal objections against the impugned notice. The respondents justified the notice, stating that it was necessary due to the petitioner's lack of cooperation in the investigation into offenses. However, the petitioner contended that they had been law-abiding and cooperative in all matters. The court was tasked with evaluating the petitioner's conduct in cooperating with the investigation and determining the validity of the lookout circulars. The court observed that if the petitioner continued to cooperate with the investigation, the respondents were willing to revoke the lookout circular. The court directed the first respondent to review the necessity of maintaining the lookout notice and to communicate a decision within two weeks if satisfied with the petitioner's cooperation. The petitioner was allowed to submit relevant communication to the respondents for consideration. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with the directive for the respondents to pass orders within the specified timeframe.