ORDER : The petitioner, who is a Sri Lankan Refugee and mother of three minor children, has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition, to direct the respondents to produce her husband, by name, Thayapararaj, S/o. Kathirvelu, before this Court, alleging that he is illegally detained by the police. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the family members were detained by the police on allegation of travelling without passport. The detenu-Thayapararaj was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram. The convict has undergone the imprisonment and was released on 08th October, 2015. It is the contention of the petitioner that thereafter, he was illegally detained by the respondents at Trichy. He has been kept under solitary confinement at Trichy Special Camp. The petitioner was given allotment of a house by the authorities at Rameswaram. Since the detention of her husband is per se illegal, the petitioner has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Q Branch CID, Chennai, filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it was contended that the petitioner and her husband were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram, in C.C. No. 256 of 2014 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Subsequently, they were released. The detenu was, thereafter, re-lodged in Cheyyar Special Camp, Thiruvannamalai. The petitioner and her children were lodged in Quarantine Camp at Mandapam, Rameswaram. Subsequently, Thiruvannamalai Camp was closed and the detenu was transferred to Trichy Special Camp along with other inmates. According to the Superintendent of Police, the detenu had actively participated during the civil war in Sri Lanka and crossed the borders without valid travel documents. He is presently confined at the Special Camp, Trichy, pursuant to the order passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, in G.O. No. SR.III/61-2/2016, Public (SC) Department, dated 01 March, 2016. 4. This Court, taking into account the submission made by the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General, passed the following order on 04th July, 2016: "This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed to direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu, by name Thayapararaj and set him at liberty. 2. When this Habeas Corpus Petition came up for admission on 29 June, 2016, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the detenu is presently confined at the Special Camp, Trichy, pursuant to the order passed by the Public (SC) Department, dated 01st March, 2016. 2. When this Habeas Corpus Petition came up for admission on 29 June, 2016, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the detenu is presently confined at the Special Camp, Trichy, pursuant to the order passed by the Public (SC) Department, dated 01st March, 2016. The matter was adjourned to file a counter-affidavit and produce the records. 3. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by placing reliance on the order in G.O. No. SR.III/61-2/2016, Public (SC) Department, dated 01 March, 2016, submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the Government, the detenu is lodged at the Special Camp for Sri Lankan Immigrants/ refugees at Trichy. 4. The order dated 01 March, 2016, does not contain any reason much less justifiable reason to lodge the detenu at the Special Camp. Even according to the respondents, the detenu has undergone the punishment and no case is pending against him. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to justify the detention of the detenu. The order dated 01 March, 2016, is bereft of details. We, therefore, direct the Joint Secretary to Government, Public (SC) Department, to appear before us in person at 10.30 a.m., on 11th July, 2016, along with the relevant file to justify the detention of Thiru. Thayapararaj, S/o.Kathirvel, who is the husband of the petitioner. 6. We direct the Superintendent of Police, Q Branch CID, Chennai and the Officer In-charge of the Special Camp for Sri Lankan Immigrants/refugees, Trichy, to produce the detenu before us at 10.30 a.m., on 11th July, 2016. 7. Post on 11 July, 2016." 5. Subsequently, after quoting the earlier order dated 04 July, 2016, another order was passed on 11 July, 2016. The order reads thus: "2. When the Habeas Corpus Petition was taken up for hearing today, the learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, submitted that the respondents are prepared to arrange accommodation to the petitioner at Trichy, so as to enable her to visit the detenu every day from 10.00 a.m., to 05.00 p.m. The learned Additional Advocate General, further, submitted that it would not be possible to permit the detenu to stay with the petitioner and family at Mandapam on account of security reasons. In short, it is the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that it would not be possible for the police to watch the movement of the detenu, in case he is permitted to stay with the petitioner at Mandapam. 3. The petitioner has produced a copy of the proceedings, whereby and whereunder, a house was allotted to her by the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, to stay with her children. The house is situated at Door No. OB- 20/2 in Mandapam Refugee Settlement. 4. The petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person, submitted that the accommodation given to her is situated inside the Mandapam camp and it is well protected by the Q Branch police. The petitioner, further, submitted that it would not be possible to enter the area without the permission of the police. Similarly, it would not be possible to the inmates of Camp, Refugees and other residents of Mandapam Refugee Settlement to leave the place without the permission or knowledge of the police. In short, it is the contention of the petitioner that the Mandapam camp, where she is presently residing, is a high security area where there are sufficient policemen posted to watch the movement of the inmates and those who are residing in the houses allotted to the refugees and others like her and as such, the detenu can be permitted to stay there. 5. The detenu is presently detained at the Trichy Special Camp along with other inmates effective 04 March, 2016, vide order dated 01 March, 2016. 6. The detenu was earlier involved in a case in Crime No.27 of 2014 under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Section 3 (a) r/w 6(a) of the Passport (Entry into India) Rule, 1950, which resulted in his conviction by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram. The Certificate issued by the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison-1 (Convict), Puzhal, dated 08th October, 2015, indicates that the detenu has undergone the imprisonment and he was released on 08 October, 2015. There are no other cases pending against him. 7. The core question is as to whether we should permit the detenu to reside along with the petitioner and her three children either at Trichy or at Mandapam on humanitarian ground. 8. There are no other cases pending against him. 7. The core question is as to whether we should permit the detenu to reside along with the petitioner and her three children either at Trichy or at Mandapam on humanitarian ground. 8. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the respondents would provide accommodation to the petitioner at Trichy, so as to enable her to meet the detenu everyday from 10.00 a.m., to 05.00 p.m. It is the case of the State that it would not be possible to keep surveillance over the detenu, in case he is shifted to Mandapam. 9. The learned Additional Advocate General subsequently, on instruction, submitted that the respondents would arrange a house at the Quarantine Camp, Mandapam, so as to enable the petitioner to stay there with the detenu. 10. The records produced before us by the respondents indicate that the State is taking steps to deport the petitioner and the detenu to Sri Lanka, pursuant to the request made by the Foreign Government. In fact, the learned Additional Advocate General fairly submitted that the Home Department has already taken up the issue with the Government and every effort would be taken to deport the detenu and the petitioner to Sri Lanka at the earliest. Such being the factual position, we are of the view that appropriate orders, to take care of the interest of the State as well as the detenu, should be passed in this matter. We are also of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the State by transferring the detenu to Mandapam from Trichy. 11. We direct the Joint Secretary to Government, Public (SC) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and the respondents to transfer the detenu, by name Thayapararaj from the Special Camp at Trichy to the house allotted to the petitioner bearing Door No. OB-20/2 in Mandapam Refugee Settlement at Ramanathapuram in Ramanathapuram District forthwith and in any case, by 05.00 p.m., on 13 July, 2016. The movement of the detenu after transfer would be curtailed, in view of the pending proceedings initiated to deport him to Sri Lanka. 12. We direct the second respondent to keep surveillance over the detenu by providing round the clock security. 13. The movement of the detenu after transfer would be curtailed, in view of the pending proceedings initiated to deport him to Sri Lanka. 12. We direct the second respondent to keep surveillance over the detenu by providing round the clock security. 13. We direct the detenu to obtain permission from the Superintendent of Police, Q Branch CID, Chennai or from this Court, in case he wanted to undertake travel to Chennai to appear before the Sri Lankan Embassy, in connection with the application stated to have been submitted for issuing a passport to travel to Sri Lanka. In short, without the permission of the Superintendent of Police, Q Branch CID, Chennai or this Court, the detenu shall not move from the residence bearing Door No.OB-20/2. 14. It is open to the respondents to take all the necessary steps to ensure the presence of the detenu in the home bearing Door No. OB-20/2 till he is deported to Sri Lanka, pursuant to the request made to that effect by the Sri Lankan authorities. 15. Mr. Saleem, Joint Secretary to Government, Public (SC) Department, Secretariat, Chennai, is present in Court today. His further appearance is dispensed with. 16. Post on 14 July, 2016 for reporting compliance'." 6. The matter was, thereafter, taken up for hearing on 14 July, 2016. We have passed the following order, taking into account the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General with regard to the transfer of the detenu to Mandapam: "2. When the Habeas Corpus Petition was taken up for consideration today, the learned Additional Advocate General produced a copy of the letter dated 13.07.2016 sent by the Regional Special Deputy Collector, Refugees Camp, Kottappattu, Tiruchirapalli to the Regional Special Deputy Collector, Mandapam Refugees Camp, Ramanathapuram District, wherein it is stated that the detenu is permitted to reside along with the petitioner at her residence bearing Door No. OB-20/2, Mandapam Refugees Settlement, Ramanathapuram District, pursuant to the order passed by this Court. 3. The substantial prayer made by the petitioner in this Habeas Corpus Petition is to permit her husband to reside along with her, after releasing him from the Special Camp at Trichy. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the detenu has already been shifted from the Special Camp at Trichy and he is presently residing with the petitioner. 5. The substantial prayer made by the petitioner in this Habeas Corpus Petition is to permit her husband to reside along with her, after releasing him from the Special Camp at Trichy. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the detenu has already been shifted from the Special Camp at Trichy and he is presently residing with the petitioner. 5. Post the matter on 19.07.2016 for filing a report by the Regional Special Deputy Collector, Mandapam Refugees Camp, Ramanathapuram District and the Superintendent of Police, Q Branch CID, Chennai to the effect that the detenu has already been shifted to Mandapam and he is residing along with the petitioner at Door No. OB-20/2, Mandapam Refugees Camp, Ramanathapuram District." 7. The Superintendent of Police, Q Branch CID, Chennai, submitted a compliance report, pursuant to our order dated 14 July, 2016. 8. We have perused the report filed by the Superintendent of Police, Q Branch CID, Chennai, dated 16.07.2016. 9. According to the Superintendent of Police, the detenu has already been shifted to Mandapam Refugee Settlement at Ramanathapuram, and he is residing along with the petitioner. 10. The petitioner, who appeared as party in person, fairly admitted the above said factual position. According to the petitioner, the detenu requires immediate treatment for mental disorder by taking him to a mental hospital. She also stated that the detenu has been taking treatment from a Psychiatrist at Trichy till he was shifted to Mandapam. 11. The learned Additional Advocate General fairly stated that the detenu has been taking treatment for mental disorder till he was shifted to Mandapam Refugee Settlement in Ramanathapuram. 12. Mrs. Vasanthi, the Deputy Collector, In-charge, Mandapam Camp, is present in Court today. 13. In view of the request made by the petitioner and taking into account the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General, we pass the following order:- (i) Mrs. Vasanthi, the Deputy Collector, In-charge, Mandapam Camp, is directed to refer the detenu by name Thayapararaj, S/o.Kathirvelu to the Ramanathapuram District Head Quarters Hospital, Ramanathapuram, for treatment for his alleged mental disorder. (ii) We are informed by the learned Additional Advocate General that Dr. Periyar Lenin and Dr.Rafiq, Psychiatrists, are available at Ramanathapuram District Head Quarter Hospital, Ramanathapuram. Vasanthi, the Deputy Collector, In-charge, Mandapam Camp, is directed to refer the detenu by name Thayapararaj, S/o.Kathirvelu to the Ramanathapuram District Head Quarters Hospital, Ramanathapuram, for treatment for his alleged mental disorder. (ii) We are informed by the learned Additional Advocate General that Dr. Periyar Lenin and Dr.Rafiq, Psychiatrists, are available at Ramanathapuram District Head Quarter Hospital, Ramanathapuram. The detenu shall be taken to the said Hospital by police with a request from the Deputy Collector, In-charge, Mandapam Camp, to examine him and if necessary, to admit him there for treatment. The petitioner shall be permitted to accompany and stay with the detenu. He should be taken back after treatment to stay with the petitioner at Door No. OB-20/2, Mandapam Refugee Settlement. (iii) In case further treatment is necessary at any point of time, it is the duty of the Deputy Collector, Mandapam Camp and the concerned police to take the detenu to the Hospital. (iv) In modification of our earlier order, we permit the petitioner to approach the Deputy Collector, In-charge, Mandapam Camp, in case it is necessary to take the detenu to any place outside the Mandapam Camp either for treatment or for any other purpose, like appearance before the Embassy. The Deputy Collector, In-charge, Mandapam Camp is directed to grant permission on such request with or without conditions, after satisfying about the genuineness of the request. Necessary police escort shall be provided by the second respondent. (v) We grant liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court, in case further orders are necessary. 14. The Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of with the above directions.