Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order passed under the provisions of Foreigners Act, 1946 made in G.O.No.SR.III/791-5/2003 dated 15.12.2003 on the file of the first respondent, quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu Maheswaran now lodged at Special Camp for Srilankans at Chengalpattu before this Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner, by name Maheswaran @ Rajkumar @ Kadiresan @ Thambapillai, a Srilankan citizen, challenges the order made under G.O.No.SR.III/791-5/2003 dated 15.12.2003 in and by which the Government of Tamil Nadu, in exercise of the powers under Section 3(2)(e) of Foreigners Act, 1946 (Central Act 31 of 1946) read with the notification of the Government of India, Ministray of Home Affairs, No.4/3/56(1) F-1 dated 19.4.1958, regulated the continued presence of the foreigner, by directing him to reside in the Special Camp for Sri Lankan Immigrants/refugees identified and located by the Collector of Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu. In the same order, it is directed that the petitioner shall not leave the boundaries of the said Special Camp for Sri Lankan immigrants/refugees except with the permission of the Collector. 2. According to the petitioner, he is a Sri Lankan citizen and due to ethnic problems in Sri Lanka, he came to India in the year 1989, as a refugee. He was staying in Chennai in his relatives house. On 2.8.1984, there was a bomb blast in the Madras Airport. The Chennai CB.,CID., Police registered a case in Crime No.53 of 1984 and he, along with four other persons, were arrested on 16.9.1984 in connection with the bomb blast. Thereafter, he was released on bail in the month of November, 1984. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against him for the alleged offence under Sections 120(B) r/w 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 12(b) of Passport Act, 1967, 114 and 302 IPC r/w 301, 436 and 307 IPC. When he was staying at Adayar, he was remanded to judicial custody and he was detained at Central Prison, Chennai from 30.01.1998. After completion of the trial in S.C.No.200 of 2002, he was found not guilty of the offence and he was acquitted from the charges by an order dated 22.09.2004. When he was staying at Adayar, he was remanded to judicial custody and he was detained at Central Prison, Chennai from 30.01.1998. After completion of the trial in S.C.No.200 of 2002, he was found not guilty of the offence and he was acquitted from the charges by an order dated 22.09.2004. Even when the trial was in progress, the first respondent passed an order of detention on 15.12.2003 under Section 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act to confine him in the Special Camp for Srilankans at Chenglepat. However, the said order was neither executed nor served on him. Only after the judgment was rendered in the criminal case, he was lodged at the Special Camp, Chenglepat on 22.09.2004. Thereafter, the second respondent has filed an appeal against the order of acquittal in Crl.A.No.648 of 2005 and the same was admitted and while admitting the above appeal, this Court passed an order to issue a bailable warrant against the petitioner by imposing certain conditions. Though this Court passed an order on 10.08.2005, the petitioner could not execute the sureties since he was confined in the Special Camp, Chengalpat. Questioning the order of the Government confining him in the Special Camp, Chenglepat, the petitioner has filed the above petition. 3. The Deputy Secretary to Government, Public (SC) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 has filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the above petition. It is stated that the order dated 15.12.2003 passed under Section 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 is not a detention order and it is an order which is intended to regulate the continued presence of the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner dated 15.10.2005 to the first respondent was considered and it was rejected on the ground that he was the organizer of the militant organisation called "Tamil Eelam Army", involved in criminal cases and that he has no travelling documents. It is further stated that as per the order of this Court in Crl.A.No.648 of 2005, the second respondent after observing the legal formalities required, arrested the petitioner at the Special Camp, Chengalpat on 22.11.2005. During the arrest, the petitioner was informed by the second respondent about his right to go out on bail on furnishing shreties. The petitioner refused to furnish sureties. Hence, he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, who remanded him to judicial custody. During the arrest, the petitioner was informed by the second respondent about his right to go out on bail on furnishing shreties. The petitioner refused to furnish sureties. Hence, he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, who remanded him to judicial custody. The order passed by the first respondent is not violative of any provisions of the Constitution of India. 4. Heard Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Abudhukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after taking us through the impugned order of the first respondent dated 15.12.2003 and the provisions of the Foreigners Act, submitted that in view of the order passed by this Court in Crl.A.No.648 of 2005 dated 10.8.2005, the earlier order of the first respondent dated 15.12.2003 cannot be executed/implemented. In other words, according to him, the judicial order passed by this Court having been complied with, the first respondent cannot meddle with the judicial order by implementing the order dated 15.12.2003 passed under the Foreigners Act. 6. On the other hand, Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the judicial order relates to the criminal offence and the execution order dated 15.12.2003 under the Foreigners Act is in respect of regulating the presence of the petitioner, who is admittedly a foreigner. Hence, according to him, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained. 7. We have considered the rival contentions. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, Section 3(2)(e)(i) of the Foreigners Act enables the Central/State Government to pass an order to regulate the movement of a foreigner. Further, in the case on hand, the first respondent has passed an order even as early as on 15.12.2003, that is, well prior to the judgment dated 10.08.2005 in Crl.A.N0.648/2005 on the file of this Court. 8. Further, we had an occasion to consider a similar contention in respect of the very same provision of the Foreigners Act in HCP No.1249 of 2005 and by order dated 15.03.2006, after considering the earlier decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court reported in 1995(2) LW (Crl.) 690(2) Kalavathy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, HCP No.1038 of 2003 etc. batch dated 14.11.2003 (Premavathy @ Rajathi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Public (SC) Department, Chennai and others), HCP No.971 of 2001(Yokeswari Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, HCP No.1038 of 2003 etc. batch dated 14.11.2003 (Premavathy @ Rajathi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Public (SC) Department, Chennai and others), HCP No.971 of 2001(Yokeswari Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government and another), rejected a similar contention as one raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein. Further, inasmuch as the petitioner is a foreigner, viz., Srilankan citizen, taking note of his involvement in various offences and of the fact that he has entered this country without proper travel documents, the State Government is empowered to pass orders, including one requiring the petitioner to reside in a particular camp. 9. In the light of the statutory provisions and the impugned order of the first respondent, we are of the view that directing the petitioner to stay in a particular place, viz., Special Camp for Sri Lankan immigrants/refugees, as identified and located by the Collector of Kancheepuram District, cannot be said to be an absolute restriction of his movement. As held in our earlier decision in HCP 1249 of 2005 dated 15.3.2006, considering the security of the State, which is a prime concern, the Government has the discretion to restrict the movement of foreigners, requiring them to reside in a particular camp. 10. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order of the first respondent. Consequently, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.