Judgment :- Common Order: M. Chockalingam, J. 1. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioners have brought forth these petitions for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 3.The case of the petitioner in HCP 2042/2008 in short is that he is the father and natural guardian of two children, namely son Srinu aged 15, and daughter Kumari aged 14; that he was a poor coolie eking his livelihood; that both the children were actually left with one Babu Krishna and Smt.Nandhini for upbringing and maintenance; that while the matter stood thus, they were actually being tortured; that it came to his knowledge; that on 20.11.2008, Babu Krishna informed him that the children were illegally and forcibly taken away from his house by an organization called Banyan, the fourth respondent herein, functioning from the opposite house of Babu Krishna, in collusion with the Child Line on cooked up allegations that the children were subjected to torture and were detained by them against their will in the illegal and unlawful custody of the respondents 2 and 3; that on the next day, he came down to Madras along with the paternal uncle and the natural guardian of Bhavani after the demise of her parents, and the maternal uncle; that he came to know that Bhavani was also taken away by the fourth respondent and detained by the second respondent; that he met Babu Krishna and his wife Nandhini and gathered all the details therefor; that he also went to the office of the 2nd and 3rd respondents and requested them to permit him to see and take his children, but it was refused, and under the circumstances, it became necessary to file this petition before this Court. 4.The grievance of the petitioner in HCP 2043/2008 is that he is the paternal uncle of the detenue Bhavani; that since her parents died, he became the natural guardian of Bhavani; that she is also a victim of the alleged torture in the case registered by the first respondent police in Crime No.1474 of 2008; that he is a poor coolie; that he entrusted her to the custody of Babu Krishna and Nandhini; that on 20.11.2008, Babu Krishna informed him that Bhavani was illegally and forcibly taken away from his house by an organization called Banyan, the third respondent herein, alleging that the second respondent is detaining her against her will; that thereafter, he came down to Madras along with his relatives; that he went to the office of the 2nd respondent and requested them to permit him to see and take his ward Bhavani; but, they refused, and hence he has approached this Court. 5. In answer to the above, it is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that on the complaint of the second respondent, a case came to be registered in Crime No.1474 of 2008 and the victims are these children and the said Bhavani; that pursuant to the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, both the children and Bhavani are actually in the custody of the third respondent; that not even any application is made for the custody of the children and Bhavani, and there is no impediment in making an application before the second respondent for the custody of the children and Bhavani. 6. It is not a fit case, in the considered opinion of the Court, to issue a writ of habeas corpus since the petitioners have not applied before the 2nd respondent Child Welfare Committee, for the custody of the children and the said Bhavani respectively. However, at this stage, no impediment could be felt in making such applications before the second respondent. However, at this stage, no impediment could be felt in making such applications before the second respondent. In appraisement of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that a direction could be given to the second respondent to consider the request of the petitioners if and when made as to the custody of the children namely Srinu and Kumari, and also the said Bhavani, as one required under law and also ascertain whether the petitioner in HCP 2042/2008 is the father and natural guardian of the children and whether the petitioner in HCP 2043/2008 is the paternal uncle and natural guardian of Bhavani, as contended by them. Accordingly, a direction is issued and both these habeas corpus petitions are disposed of.