Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 511 (MAD)

Sekar v. The District Collector & Others

2006-02-27

J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR, P.SATHASIVAM

body2006
Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondent to produce the body of detenus (1) Chellamal, (2) Dharman, (3) Chittra, (4) Iyadurai, (5) Ambika, (6) Aravind, (7) Annamalai, (8) Lakshimi, (9) Jayaraj, (10) Subramani, (11) Saroja, (12) Thulasi, (13) Amutha, (14) Kumar, (15) Kadirvel, (16) Venkatachalam, (17) Lakshimi, (18) Mani, (19) Amudha, (20) Kumar and (21) Kannian, relative of the petitioner herein, before this Court, who were illegally detained by the 6th and 7th respondent herein and set them at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner by name Sekar has filed this Petition for production of 21 named persons therein before this Court, who, according to him, were illegally detained by respondents-6 and 7 and to set them at liberty. 2. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, all the persons/detenus referred in the petition were produced before this Court on 29.11.2005 and after enquiry, all of them were set free. Taking note of their poverty, illiteracy and age, this Court directed the District Collector, Salem, to provide necessary help such as shelter, food and employment at least for a period of three months. The District Collector was also directed to prepare/frame a Scheme for rehabilitation of those persons. It is not in dispute that after release, all the persons were temporarily provided with food and shelter. 3. In the said order, we also directed for issuance of notice to respondents-6 and 7. Pursuant to the same, the 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit (also on behalf of R-7), highlighting that the number of persons referred to in the petition viz., 21, is not correct and, in fact, only 14 were taken to his place that too by payment of regular wages. He also denied various averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the above Petition. It is further stated that the petitioner, who filed the above Habeas Corpus Petition on behalf of others, owns a tractor worth Rs.3,75,000/- and a Scooter costing more than Rs.15,000/-. It is also stated that the 14 persons taken by him were paid wages at the rate of Rs.80/- per day. 4. It is further stated that the petitioner, who filed the above Habeas Corpus Petition on behalf of others, owns a tractor worth Rs.3,75,000/- and a Scooter costing more than Rs.15,000/-. It is also stated that the 14 persons taken by him were paid wages at the rate of Rs.80/- per day. 4. In addition to the counter affidavit showing all the above details, counsel for R-6 and R-7 also produced a Certificate from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bangalore South Sub-Division, dated 28.11.2005, wherein, the said Authority has stated that the persons mentioned in the said Certificate (numbering 13+1 = 14), are not bonded labourers and that all of them were engaged in S.G.B. Stone Quarry work with one Srinivas on taking coolie of Rs.80/-. The said Certificate further shows that all of them have been released on 28.11.2005 as per letter No.MAG(3) CR/60/05-06, dated 28.11.2006, of the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Bangalore District, Karnataka State. The said Certificate is available at page No.5 of the typed set of papers filed by R-6. 5. In the light of the above information and the details furnished and also of the fact that the persons, who were taken to Karnataka State, were sent to their native place and settled, we are of the view that no further adjudication is required in this Habeas Corpus Petition. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is closed.