Judgment :- Janarthanam, J. The present action - H.C.P. No.430 of 1997 is for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, for the production of the body of the alleged detenu Vijayakumar, son of Varadarajulu alias Kalki Bhagavan before this Court and release him from the illegal custody of respondents 1 to 3 and set him at liberty. 2. The present action has been resorted to by one D. Gopalan (petitioner). There is an appendage of the word “Writ”, prefixing the name of the petitioner -D.Gopalan, i.e., to say, the petitioner calls himself as “writ D.Gopalan”. He also describes himself as the General Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Association and Free Legal Aid Board - a camouflaged description, we rather feel, to hoodwink the public. 3. The petitioner would claim that the alleged detenu Vijayakumar, son of Varadarajulu alias Kalki Bhagavan is in the illegal custody and detention of respondents 1 to 3. He would describe respondents 1 to 3 as below: 1. Thiru Paramachariyar, Chief Administrator, Kalki Asramam, and Chief Disciple (Chief Seedar) of Kalki Bhagavan, Nemam Village, Poonamalli,Madras-56. 2. Thiru Sankar Bagawada, Paramachariar, Administrator of Kalki Asramam and Deciple of Kalki Bhagvan (Seedar), Nemam Village, Poonamalli,Madras-56. 3. Thiru Sankara Bhaganth Batha, Administrator of Kalki Asramam and Disciple of Kalki Bhagavan, Nemam Village, Poonamalli,Madras-56. The other respondents viz., respondents 4 to 8 are the Government Officials. The 4th respondent is the Home Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, while respondents 5 to 8 are Officials in different categories belonging to Police Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. 4. The prayer in this action is for the issuance of a direction to respondents 4 to 8 for the production of the body of the alleged detenu Vijaykumar, son of Varadarajulu alias Kalki Bhagavan before this Court, after releasing the said Bhagavan from the illegal custody and detention of respondents 1 to 3 and thereby set him at liberty. 5. This action came up for hearing on 29.4.1997 and this Court passed the order as below: “Admit. Mr. Syed Fasuiddin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice on behalf of respondents 4 to 8. Notice to issue to respondents 1 to 3, returnable by 12.6.1997.” 6. M/s. Row and Reddy, Mrs.R. Vaigai and Mr.S. Vaidyanathan filed vakalath for Thiru Sankara Bhagawath Batha filed a counter affidavit. Mr. Syed Fasuiddin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice on behalf of respondents 4 to 8. Notice to issue to respondents 1 to 3, returnable by 12.6.1997.” 6. M/s. Row and Reddy, Mrs.R. Vaigai and Mr.S. Vaidyanathan filed vakalath for Thiru Sankara Bhagawath Batha filed a counter affidavit. We are able to discern from the said counter-affidavit that respondents 1 to 3 are not three different persons and their description to only one person, viz., Sankara Bahagwath Batha. It is further alleged in the said counter that the alleged detenu Vijaykumar, S/o. Varadarajulu alias Kalki Bhagavan was not at all in the illegal custody of Sankara Bhagawath Batha. This apart, what is further alleged therein is that the alleged, detenu Kalki Bhagavan gave public Darshan on 12.5.1997 and on all succeeding Sundays at Sathyalok, Andhra Pradesh for more than tens of thousands of devotees, who were present. 7. One C.K. Gandhirajan, I.P.S. Superintendent of Police, St.Thomas Mount, Madras-16 (8th respondent) filed a counter affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of respondents 4 to 7, claiming himself to be very well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. He would claim that on 11.5.1997 the Police Officials came to know that the alleged detenu Kalki Bhagavan was available at Sathyalok at Andhra Pradesh and after seizing knowledge of such an information, a team of Officers went to Sathyalok to verify whether the said Kalki Bhagavan was really under the illegal custody as alleged in this action. He would claim that the Police Officials reached Sathyalok at Andhra Pradesh on 12.5.1997, on which date the alleged detenu Kalki Bhagavan was stated to have given Darshan in the after noon to the public. He would also claim that the Police informed the Asramam authorities about the H.C.P. filed before this Court and returned back to Chennai. 8. Arguments of Mr.D. Gopalan party in person and the respective learned counsel were heard. 9. The alleged detenu Kalki Bhagavan himself filed an affidavit. The following relevant factors are getting revealed from the affidavit so filed. He was born on 7.3.1949 at Natham near Gudiyatham in Tamil Nadu. His parents Sri S. Varadarajulu and Smt.V. Vaidharbi are still alive and are living at Chennai. His son N.K.V. Krishna and his wife live at Sathyalok with him. The following relevant factors are getting revealed from the affidavit so filed. He was born on 7.3.1949 at Natham near Gudiyatham in Tamil Nadu. His parents Sri S. Varadarajulu and Smt.V. Vaidharbi are still alive and are living at Chennai. His son N.K.V. Krishna and his wife live at Sathyalok with him. For the past 10 years he had been living at Sathyalok, Rajupeta Village,Ramakuppam, Chittoor District,Andhra Pradesh with his wife Smt.Padmavati Devi. His Divine work and Mission sprouted in the year 1989 at Satyalok and he had established a monastic order, consisting of 7 Acharyas and 139 ranks, both male and female. Of the 7 Acharyas, Sri Sankara Bhagawath Batha, who is cited as the first respondent in this action is the first direct disciple and he is the “Paramacharya” of his order. He gave Darshan at Satyalok on 12.5.1997, 18.5.1997, 25.5.1997, 1.6.1997 and 8.6.1997. Admission to the place where he made public appearance was open to all and not restricted. Thousands of devotees were stated to have assembled on every one of those days. He was not at all in the illegal custody of Sri Sankara Bhagavadapada at any point of time. He always remained free and liberated and his freedom and liberty had never been curtailed by anybody at any point of time. Neither of his parents nor his son have made any complaint to any one as to his having been detained illegally. None from the spiritual order have made any complaint of his being held in illegal custody. Top of all, at the risk of reputation, he would say, that he was not at all his illegal detention or in the custody of any person and he is totally free and all the allegation relatable to his illegal detention in the affidavit filed in support of this action are divorced of the realities of the situation. 10. The alleged detenu Kalki Bhagavans father S.Varadarajulu and his wife Smt.V.Padmavati Devi also filed affidavits treading on the path chosen by him. 11. From a perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present action, we are able to discern that the petitioner is not having any sort of personal knowledge as to the alleged detenu Vijaykumar, son of Varadarajulu alias Kalki Bhagavan being illegally detained by respondents 1 to 3. 11. From a perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present action, we are able to discern that the petitioner is not having any sort of personal knowledge as to the alleged detenu Vijaykumar, son of Varadarajulu alias Kalki Bhagavan being illegally detained by respondents 1 to 3. He has not placed or produced any tangible material for seizing of such knowledge of illegal detention of the said illegal detenu Kalki Bhagavan. Though the petitioner claims himself as a devotee of the alleged detenu Vijaykumar, son of Varadarajulu alias Kalki Bhagavan, he is not even posted with the information as relatable to Sankara Bhagawath Batha. That because of the reason in the case title, to the petition, he referred to three respondents as being district and different persons, though it is not really so. This apart, the present action had been filed as a public interest litigation. 12. A writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary one and it cannot be granted for the mere asking. Directing a person to be produced in court is certainly a serious matter which could have certain consequences affecting the interest of the person concerned and the person against whom allegations have been made. Therefore, unless the court is satisfied that there is a prima facie ground for coming to the conclusion that the alleged detenu Kalki Bhagavan is kept under illegal custody, it is not possible for this Court to issue a writ as prayed for. 13. Not only the petitioner is not having any personal knowledge or first hand information relatable to the illegal detention of the alleged detenu Vijayakumar, son of Varadarajulu alias Kalki Bhagavan, he had not even taken a little bit of care even to lodge a complaint before the concerned police authorities as respects the illegal detention of the said detenu and he had come forward directly to this Court with the present action. What all he alleged as relatable to illegal detention of the alleged detenu, is traceable to paragraph 17 of the affidavit filed in support of this action, which reads as under: “I humbly submit 1 to 3 respondents and other spoiled in the name of Kalki Bhagavan name and fame and forcibly kidnapped and detaining illegally and illegal custody. What all he alleged as relatable to illegal detention of the alleged detenu, is traceable to paragraph 17 of the affidavit filed in support of this action, which reads as under: “I humbly submit 1 to 3 respondents and other spoiled in the name of Kalki Bhagavan name and fame and forcibly kidnapped and detaining illegally and illegal custody. Therefore, I approached in this Hon’ble Court there is a danger in life of the detenu Kalki Bhagavan and detained in the above 1 to 3 respondents in the dark room.” He had also incorporated countless arguments in the form of castigating Sankara Bhagawath Badha and also the alleged detenu Kalki Bhagavan and his activities, which are not germane for the purpose of considering the issue in this action and therefore, we are not relating them. 14. As against the materials stated above, as produced by the petitioner, which in legal parlance, cannot at all be stated to be prima facie materials, Plethora materials - prima facie say materials more-or-less in the form of proof-had been placed before this Court, in the shape of affidavits filed by the alleged detenu Kalki Bhagavan, his father and his wife, as stated above, pointing out that the alleged detenu Vijayakumar, son of Varadarajulu alias Kalki Bhagavan was at no point of time under the illegal detention of any one muchless the 1st respondent and he had been always a free person and this aspect of the matter is getting demonstrated by his making public appearances on very many dates subsequent to resorting to the present action by way of giving Dharshan to his devotees. That alleged detenu Vijaykumar, son of Varadarajulu alias Kalki Bhagavan, being a free person not under the illegal detention of any one, muchless 1st respondent is also vouch-safed by the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu (8th respondent) for his behalf and on behalf of respondents 4 to 7. In such state of affairs, to say that the alleged detenu Vijayakumar, son of Varadarajulu alias Kalki Bhagavan is under the illegal detention of the 1st respondent, muchless any one, cannot at all be countenanced on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 15. We are unable to discern any public interest in this action. In such state of affairs, to say that the alleged detenu Vijayakumar, son of Varadarajulu alias Kalki Bhagavan is under the illegal detention of the 1st respondent, muchless any one, cannot at all be countenanced on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 15. We are unable to discern any public interest in this action. No such issue, as one brought in the instant case, can ever be called as an issue concerning any legal enquiry, to a class of the population at large. 16. In fine, we see no ground to entertain this writ petition and to grant the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, this H.C.P. is dismissed.