Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1483 (KAR)

Nidagunda Shiv Kumar v. State of Karnataka

2019-07-01

ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR, K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2019
JUDGMENT : K. N. PHANEENDRA, J. 1. The above writ petitions are filed by a News Reporter making allegations that respondent No.8 by name Shree Shree Shree Sadguru Roop Rahita Ahimsa Yogeshwari Veer Dhamaja Mata was kept in illegal custody or detention by respondents i.e., respondent Nos.9 to 15. After issuing notice to the respondents, they are represented by their counsel and contested the petitions. The petitioner is asking for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 7 to take appropriate action to release respondent No.8 from illegal detention of respondent Nos.9 to 15. 2. After haring the parties for some time earlier, this Court felt that a committee has to be formed to visit the said place where 'Mataji' alleged to had been detained illegally. IN this context, we have passed an order dated 27.05.2019 directing the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi to visit the said spot along with a team of Doctors to ascertain whether respondent No.8 Mataji was under any illegal custody or detention and also if necessary to provide medical assistance to her. 3. In this context, the Deputy Commissioner has submitted a report along with the report of the District Health Officer, Kalaburagi stating that, in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, they have visited the said place where Mataji has been residing and examined her health condition. They have specifically stated in their report dated 06.06.2019 that, they examined Mataji with the help of a translator in the presence of a Civil Surgeon and came to the conclusion that, according to her own statement she was not in illegal custody or detention of anybody. Though, Mataji was poorly nourished, she refused to take any medical assistance and even not allowed the Doctors to touch her. It is stated that some female folks were taking care of her. Therefore, on physical appearance they found Mataji was poorly nourished, but she was conscious, oriented, bedridden and unable to move on her own. On oral enquiry, they also came to know by her care takers that, she was not taking food since many years. So, on over all examination of the situation, the Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police with all responsibility submitted a report stating that she was not in illegal custody or detention of any person even according to her own statement. 4. So, on over all examination of the situation, the Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police with all responsibility submitted a report stating that she was not in illegal custody or detention of any person even according to her own statement. 4. Though, the learned counsel at the initial stage submitted that, at the time of filing of the petitions, she was under illegal detention of trustees i.e., alleged care takers (respondent Nos.9 to 15) but, he fairly submitted before the Court that, as on today, the said situation is not there and all the devotees are now allowed to visit Mataji and to take her blessings. Though, the learned counsel also contended with reference to the health condition in not giving proper treatment to Mataji by the team of Doctors and also with reference to property of the said place belonging to Mataji, we do not want to delve upon those aspects because scope of the petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is limited particularly under the heading of Habeas Corpus. 5. Though, the learned counsel has also drawn our attention by stating that, the said Mataji is very poorly nourished and she cannot walk, nobody is there to take proper care of her however, it is also stated that, some female folks are taking care of said Mataji in the said institution itself. We make it clear that, if Mataji wants any medical assistance, as we have ascertained from the Deputy Commissioner that, the District Administration is always ready to give medical assistance to said Mataji. If need arises, the Mataji can take assistance of the District Administration for the purpose of any medical assistance. 6. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the cases, we declined to go into merits and demerits of the cases, it is made clear that, at the time of hearing of these petitions, the said Mataji is not found to be in illegal or unlawful custody or detention of any person. All the devotees are allowed to meet said Mataji and her institution and also number of people are visiting Mataji and taking her blessings. 7. All the devotees are allowed to meet said Mataji and her institution and also number of people are visiting Mataji and taking her blessings. 7. In the above, it is worth to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Talib Hussain vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1971) 3 SCC 118 wherein the Apex Court has made it clear in paragraph No.6 that, "In regard to the submission that the petitioner was arrested and deprived of his personal liberty long before the order of his arrest and this invalidated his detention, it is sufficient to point out that in habeas corpus proceedings the Court has to consider the legality of the detention on the date of hearing. If on the date of hearing it cannot be said that the aggrieved party has been wrongfully deprived of his personal liberty and his detention is contrary to law, a writ of habeas corpus cannot issue." 8. But, in the instant cases, as on the date of hearing of the petitions, the detenu was not in illegal custody or detention of any person and there is no question about liberation of such detenu. 9. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that these petitions are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed. In view of disposal of main petitions, applications for production of documents do not survive for consideration.