Judgment :- Common Order (M. Karpagavinayagam, J.) Since the issue involved in both these petitions is similar, a common order is being passed. 2. Vasanthakumar, petitioner in H.C.P.No.1241 of 2004, and Lingam, petitioner in H.C.P.No.1272 of 2004, have filed these Habeas Corpus Petitions, seeking for quashing of the detention orders in G.O.Nos.SR.III/2628-3/97, dated 03.10.1997, and SR.III/3344-18/94, dated 24.05.1995, respectively on the file of the first respondent, namely, Secretary to Government, Public (S.C.) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009, and for setting them at liberty. 3. According to the petitioners, they are Sri Lankan Tamilians. They came to India in the year 1991. They were arrested by the C.B.I.Police and kept in their custody. Vasanthakumar alias Vasanthan was implicated as an accused in E.P.R.L.F.Leader Padmanabha murder case and he was lodged in Central Prison, Chennai, as a TADA accused. In the year 1992, a charge sheet was filed against the said Vasanthan and others for the said case. The TADA Court, after a full-fledged trial, found him not guilty and acquitted him of all the charges, by its judgment, dated 03.11.1997. Thereafter, he was taken to Chengalpattu and lodged in Special Camp for Sri Lankan Refugees and served an order of detention, dated 03.10.1997, detaining him under Section 3 (2) (e) of Foreigners Act,1946. Lingam, petitioner in H.C.P.No.1272 of 2004, was arrested by C.B.I.Police and kept in Vedaranyam Police Station, in connection with Rajiv Gandhi murder case. After enquiry, it was found that he had no connection with the said murder and the C.B.I.Police recorded him as a witness. Thereafter, on 14.08.1991, he was detained under Section 3 (2) (e) of Foreigners Act by officials; lodged in Special Refugee Camp at Saidapet and, thereafter, shifted to Special Camp for Sri Lankans at Chengalpattu. 4. Vasanthan, petitioner in H.C.P.No.1241 of 2004, on 26.05.1998, preferred an application before the Government/first respondent, to permit him to go abroad. Accordingly, first respondent granted him permission to go abroad. On 02.02.2000, he was permitted by the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, to get passport. In the meantime, on 18.09.1999, the Government/first respondent passed an order, permitting the C.B.I.Police/second respondent, to question the inmates of the Special Refugee Camps and record their statements, as they are suspects, involved in the conspiracy of murder of Rajiv Gandhi. 5. On 02.02.2000, he was permitted by the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, to get passport. In the meantime, on 18.09.1999, the Government/first respondent passed an order, permitting the C.B.I.Police/second respondent, to question the inmates of the Special Refugee Camps and record their statements, as they are suspects, involved in the conspiracy of murder of Rajiv Gandhi. 5. Lingam, petitioner in H.C.P.No.1272 of 2004, filed an application before the Government, to permit him to go to Sri Lanka, but, there was no order passed. Hence, he filed H.C.P.No.657 of 1995. On 08.08.1995, a Division Bench of this Court recorded the statement of the Public Prosecutor that the detenu was permitted by the Government to leave this country for Sri Lanka and that the Collector has also been directed to take immediate action and, as such, it is open to the petitioner/detenu, to leave this country, after complying with the conditions. Recording the same, the said petition was disposed of, as infructuous. Thereafter, by an order, dated 18.09.1999, the Government has passed an order, permitting the C.B.I. to question the inmates of the Special Refugee Camps, including the petitioner, and record their statements, as they are suspects in the Rajiv Gandhi murder case. 6. In the meantime, all the accused were acquitted of the main charge under TADA Act. Some of them were permitted to go abroad. Both the petitioners are neither accused nor witnesses in the Rajiv Gandhi murder case. Then, the second respondent C.B.I. conducted an enquiry; examined the petitioners and recorded their statements. 7. After the judgment of the Designated Court in the Rajiv Gandhi murder case, all the 26 accused filed an appeal before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, on 11.05.1999, acquitted 19 of them and convicted only 7 accused. As a matter of fact, all the Sri Lankan accused, who were acquitted of the charge of murder of Rajiv Gandhi, were permitted to go abroad, by the Government/first respondent. 8. In the above circumstances, both the petitioners had filed H.C.P.Nos.158 and 161 of 2004. When the matters had come up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, it was contended by the second respondent/CBI, that some more time was required to complete the enquiry, as ordered by the Jain Commission, with regard to suspects, and the Division Bench, after hearing the counsel for the parties, passed the following order: "9. When the matters had come up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, it was contended by the second respondent/CBI, that some more time was required to complete the enquiry, as ordered by the Jain Commission, with regard to suspects, and the Division Bench, after hearing the counsel for the parties, passed the following order: "9. It is true that the petitioners, who came to India in 1991 though were permitted to leave in 1995, at the instance of the State Government, unfortunately, both of them were not allowed to leave this country for one reason or the other. The fact remains, the petitioners have not moved this Court on earlier occasion by way of a petition for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ; only in the month of February,2004, the petitioners have approached this Court for necessary directions. As observed earlier, in the light of the specific contention by the counsel for the respondents that both the petitioners have been named as suspects in the Final Report of the Jain Commission Inquiry and their presence is required for further investigation as well as awaiting reply to the Letter of Rogatory sent to Srilankan Government, we are of the view that some more reasonable time may be given to the respondent. It is made clear that if no effective steps have been taken and investigation is completed with follow up action within a period of six months from today, the petitioners are at liberty to approach this Court for necessary direction. With the above observation, both the petitions are dismissed." 9. Though liberty was given to the petitioners to move the Division Bench after six months for their release, they chose to file S.L.Ps. before the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions on 09.08.2004 as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners to move this Court, after expiry of six months' period. The order was passed by the Division Bench on 16.03.2004 and six months' period was over on 15.09.2004. Since no effective steps have been taken to complete the enquiry and the investigation is not completed, the petitioners have again approached this Court, by filing the present Habeas Corpus Petitions. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions. 11. Since no effective steps have been taken to complete the enquiry and the investigation is not completed, the petitioners have again approached this Court, by filing the present Habeas Corpus Petitions. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions. 11. In this case also, a similar objection is raised, which was raised earlier before the Division Bench in H.C.P.Nos.158 and 161 of 2004, that both the petitioners have been named as suspects in the Final Report of Jain Commission and their presence is required for further enquiry. 12. When a similar argument was advanced before the Division Bench earlier, as noted above, the Division Bench was of the view that some more time must be given to the second respondent. Ultimately, the Division Bench would hold, that if no effective steps are taken and investigation is completed with follow up action within a period of six months from the date of the order, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach this Court for necessary direction. 13. As correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Division Bench passed the order on 16.03.2004 and the S.L.P. was dismissed on 09.08.2004, permitting the petitioners, to approach this Court, after the expiry of six months' period of the Division Bench order. 14. Even now, it is contended by the learned counsel for the C.B.I./second respondent, that Letters of Rogatory were sent periodically to Sri Lankan Government and, as such, effective steps have been taken to complete the investigation. 15. The fact remains, that the investigation is not yet completed. The common counter affidavit filed by second respondent, dated 04.01.2005, would indicate that Letter of Rogatory, issued by the Designated Court, Chennai, on 23.04.2001, was forwarded to the Sri Lankan Government through Diplomatic Channels on 01.05.2001 and, thereafter, C.B.I. sent another letter dated 04.06.2004 to the Sri Lankan Government, with a request to ascertain the present status of Letters Rogatory from the countries concerned, including Sri Lanka. Again, by letters dated 19.08.2004 and 14.10.2004, C.B.I. requested the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, to ascertain the present status of Letters Rogatory from the countries concerned, including Sri Lanka. Again, by letters dated 19.08.2004 and 14.10.2004, C.B.I. requested the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, to ascertain the present status of Letters Rogatory from the countries concerned, including Sri Lanka. Similar letter was sent on 24.11.2004, reminding the Foreign Secretary for early reply on the execution of Letters Rogatory; again on 23.12.2004 and lastly on 01.12.204, Joint Secretary, C.B.I., sent a letter to the D.I.G., M.D.M.A., C.B.I., New Delhi, making a request to the Government of Sri Lanka, to honour the request of Government of India. Admittedly, no particulars have been given by the Sri Lankan Government yet, responding to the Letters Rogatory and other letters, sent by C.B.I. 16. It is true, that 9 persons have been mentioned as suspects in the Jain Commission of Enquiry. There is also no dispute in the fact that petitioners' names have been mentioned as suspects along with others in the Jain Commission of Enquiry. It is brought to the notice of this Court that several other persons filed Writ Petitions before this Court and, as per the orders of a learned single Judge, several persons, similarly placed with that of the petitioners, have been permitted to leave the country. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners through the additional affidavit, indicating, that according to the Action Taken Report, the Government did not accept the Report of the Jain Commission, as there is no material against the suspects. It is mentioned in the further written arguments, that as per the remarks of the Government, C.B.I. can proceed only against Kumaran Padmanathan and Smt. Subbulakshmi Jagadeesan and not against the petitioners. Admittedly, there is no material collected whatsoever against the petitioners. Further, this Court also permitted the petitioners to seek for their release, after six months' period is over. In fact, six months' period expired on 15.09.2004. 17. Under those circumstances, the State Government is directed to permit the petitioners to go to Sri Lanka, by cancelling the detention orders, with usual conditions, as imposed for others. 18. Habeas Corpus Petitions are allowed.