IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.10.2010
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
H.C.P. No.1788 of 2010
Mrs. M. Pachiyammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Salem District.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Salem District.
3. The Sub Inspector of Police,
Tholasampatty Police Station,
Omalur Taluk, Salem District.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Chittur District,State of A.P.
5. The State of Tamilnadu,
rep. by its Secretary to
Government,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal
Welfare Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
6. Mr. Sudharsana Reddy
7. Mr. Palkaran
8. Mr. Balu
9. Mr. Murugesan ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the persons of detenus namely (1) Mani, petitioner's husband and the petitioner co-worker (2) Thangaraj and his wife (3) Chinnapillai, their daughter (4) Kasturi and their son (5) Murali, (6) Ayyanar and his wife (7) Perumayi (8) Manikandan and his wife (9) Eswari (10) Ayyandurai and his wife (11) Nithya and set them at liberty and rehabilitate and allow this writ petition.
For Petitioner : Mr. D. Dhayalan
For Respondents : Mr. V.R. Balasubramanian,
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J)
Invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, one M. Pachiyammal has brought forth this petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the detenus namely (1) Mani, petitioner’s husband and the petitioner co-worker (2) Thangaraj and his wife (3) Chinnapillai, their daughter (4) Kasturi and their son (5) Murali, (6) Ayyanar and his wife (7)Perumayi (8) Manikandan and his wife (9) Eswari (10) Ayyandurai and his wife (11) Nithya were all taken for the work of stone breaking by the sixth respondent, quarry owner, but they have not been paid wages and they have been kept as bonded labourers and they were not allowed to go outside. Under the circumstances, a complaint has been sent to respondents 1 to 3 on 4.9.2010 through registered post, but no action has been taken. Hence this application has been brought forth by the petitioner.
2. In response to the above, it is contended by the learned counsel for the State that a case was registered in Crime No.16 of 2010 on the complaint given by the petitioner against sixth respondent and three others. Investigation is on. The statement of the respondent-police is also recorded.
3. This day, all the detenus are present before this Court, except one Kasturi since she is not well, and all the detenus are set at liberty. However, this order will not stand in the way of the respondent-police to proceed with the investigation in the above crime number as one required under law and file a charge sheet before the concerned Court.
4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that a representation has already been given to the District Collector, who is the first respondent herein. According to the learned counsel, the detenus have got to be given sufficient rehabilitation and the same has got to be ordered. In such circumstances, a direction has got to be given to the first respondent to enquire into the matter and pass suitable orders thereon. The Habeas Corpus Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(M.C.J.) (C.S.K.J.)
06.10.2010
Index :- Yes.
Internet:- Yes.
ssa.
To
1. The District Collector,
Salem District.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Salem District.
3. The Sub Inspector of Police,
Tholasampatty Police Station,
Omalur Taluk, Salem District.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Chittur District,State of A.P.
5. The Secretary to
Government,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal
Welfare Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. &
C.S. KARNAN, J.
ssa.
H.C.P. No.1788 of 2010
06.10.2010