JUDGMENT : A. K. Mishra, J. 1. This writ of habeas corpus was filed on 16.10.2008 seeking following relief:- “Issue a Rule Nisi, calling upon the opposite party no.1 to 4 with further direction to produce Indra Madhi in person in the Hon’ble Court on an appointed date, taking the assistance of the opposite party no.5 who was instrumental to the disappearance of Indra Madhi in connivance with the police officials; and May issue further direction to the opposite parties to submit their reports, why he is not forwarded to the Court for such a long time, to comply with the constitutional provision as specified under Article 22 of the Constitution.” 2. Petitioner is the son of Indra Madhi. It is alleged that Indra was a member of Scheduled tribe and also elected Sarapanch of the Chimtapalli Grama Panchayat under Korukonda Panchayat Samiti in the District of Malkanagiri. On 26.8.2008, one Akula Sarkar of M.V. 123 village was arrested. He was not forwarded to Court. Indra, being Sarpanch along with Sri Deba Kawasi, the Sarpanch of Nilakamberu G.P. and another Subas Padiami met the Collector, Malkangiri twice against illegal detention of Akula by police. On 12.9.2008, police took Indra to the office of Superintendent of Police, interrogated and made him free. One Bikash Halder, opposite party no.5 was the ward member of Tumsapalli G.P. He used to keep watch over the movements of Indra. On 16.9.2008, Indra Madhi and Reena Sodi attended Block meeting. Indra brought Reena in his motorcycle and left in her village. At about 5 P.M. he was returning on the M.V.22 Canal Road. Six persons, in plain cloth, in three motorcycles intercepted Indra on his way and took away him to unknown destination. The mobile phone of Indra did not respond thereafter. His motorcycle was not found. On 18.9.2008, petitioner lodged an F.I.R. at Orkel P.S. he also lodged another F.I.R. on 19.9.2008 at Malkangiri P.S. as I.I.C., Orkel P.S. instructed him that the spot was coming under Malkangiri P.S. On 20.09.2008, petitioner along with others filed complaint before Collector, Malkangiri. The Collector sent a copy of complaint to S.P., Malkangiri (Opposite Party no.2). The S.P. assured them to take appropriate steps to trace out Indra Madhi within a week. The petitioner thereafter approached both the police stations but they did not supply any information about his missing father. The Collector sent a copy of complaint to S.P., Malkangiri (Opposite Party no.2). The S.P. assured them to take appropriate steps to trace out Indra Madhi within a week. The petitioner thereafter approached both the police stations but they did not supply any information about his missing father. Instead, the Superintendent of Police threatened them and advised them not to proceed further. When Bikas Halder, Opposite Party no.5 was asked about Indra, he was enraged and threatened the villagers. Petitioner specifically avers that this was the state of affairs in Malkangiri area and the police plea was that they were combating Naxals. 3. Notice sent to O.P. No.5 has been returned with postal endorsement “No such addressee”. Petitioner has not furnished any other address vide order dtd.2.12.2008. On behalf of opposite party no.2, S.P., Malkangiri, D.S.P., Malkangiri has filed an affidavit on 7.10.2009. Opposite party no.3, I.I.C., Malkangiri filed affidavit on 22.6.2009 and lastly on 24.6.2019. Opposite party no.4, I.I.C., Orkel P.S. also filed affidavit on 10.8.2009. 3-A. The petitioner also filed additional affidavit to provide clue of his missing father on 2.3.2009. The photograph of Indra was given to I.I.C., Malkangiri. The Court continued to obtain status report in regular intervals about the progress and steps taken to search the missing Indra. A decade old monitoring reveals that “enquiry is still continuing”. It was stated and lastly it is stated in the affidavit by opposite party nos.2 and 3 that on 22.9.2008, the petitioner had reported at Malkangiri P.S. in writing regarding missing of his father Indra Madhi since 16.9.2008 and accordingly the fact was reflected in Malkangiri P.S. station diary entry No.366 dated 22.9.2008 and Man Missing Register Sl. No.11/2008. The petitioner has mentioned in his report that, his missing father was last seen at village Tumsapalli since 16.09.2008 5.00 P.M. That on the basis of the report of the petitioner regarding missing of his father, Indra Madhi, enquiry was taken up and during course of enquiry, it was ascertained that the missing Indra Madhi on 16.09.2008 had attended the meeting at Block Office, Korukonda. One Renna Sodhi, Sarpanch, Tumusapalli G.P. had also gone to Korukonda along with her brother to attend the meeting. The brother of Reena Sodhi went to Orkel to witness Biswakarma Puja, leaving her at Korukonda. At about 4.00 P.M., the meeting ended at Block Office. One Renna Sodhi, Sarpanch, Tumusapalli G.P. had also gone to Korukonda along with her brother to attend the meeting. The brother of Reena Sodhi went to Orkel to witness Biswakarma Puja, leaving her at Korukonda. At about 4.00 P.M., the meeting ended at Block Office. As Reena Sodhi was alone, Bikash Haldar asked her as to how she would return to her village. In reply, Reena Sodhi told him that she would return to village with Indra Madhi in his motor cycle. Thereafter Reena Sodhi and Indra Madhi came to village Tumsapalli in a motor cycle bearing Registration No.OR10-D-9547. After reaching at village Tumsapalli, Indra Madhi gossiped with the father of Reena Sodhi for about 15 minutes and at about 5.00 P.M., he left alone for his village Tentuliguda in his motor cycle. Indra Madhi was last seen by one Irma Madhi, S/o-Bhima Madhi of village Tumsapalli, while he was taking bath in a canal on 16.9.2008 at about 6.P.M. and according to his version Indra Madhi proceeded towards village Kichipalli along with four unknown persons in three motor cycles and Indra Madhi was one of the pillion riders. The fact was circulated among the P.S. staff, message was sent to all police posts of Malkangiri District vide Radio Message No.1643 dtd.22.9.2008 for regular and periodical enquiries and circulation among all police personnel, published in the Malkangiri District Weekly Crime Intelligence Bulletin No.39, submitted drafts for CIG Publication to S.P., CID, CB, Odisha, Cuttack vide letter No.1660 dated 26.9.2008 & letter no.1745 dated 15.10.2008 along with the photograph of the missing person Indra Madhi to the Director, Prasar Bharati, Doordarshan Kendra, Bhubaneswar along with the photograph of the missing person for wide publicity vide letter no.2072 dated 16.12.2008. The fact was also exhibited on T.V. on 29.12.2008 at 4.25 P.M. That on 17.01.2009 CID, CB, Odisha, Cuttack had requested Director, All India Radio, Cuttack for broadcasting vide letter No.682/CID dated 06.01.2009. The CID, CB, Cuttack published the fact in CIG No.01 dated 14.1.2009, the photograph of the missing person Indra Madhi in enlarged size was affixed at all conspicuous places seeking information regarding the missing person. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. The CID, CB, Cuttack published the fact in CIG No.01 dated 14.1.2009, the photograph of the missing person Indra Madhi in enlarged size was affixed at all conspicuous places seeking information regarding the missing person. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. G. P. Mohanty, for the petitioner submits that as the missing Indra Madhi is not yet traced out by the state officials responsible to protect life and liberty of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution, State should pay compensation. He relies upon the decisions reported in (i) AIR 1986 SC 494 , Bhim Singh, MLA Vrs. State of J. & K. and Others, (ii) AIR 2000 S.C. 988 , Chairman, Railway Board and Others Vrs. Mrs. Chandrima Das and Others; and (iii) AIR 1993 SC 1960 , Smt. Nilabati Behera @ Lalita Behera vrs. State of Orissa and Others. 4-A. Learned Addl. Government Advocate Mr. J. Katikia repels the above contention stating that when no cognizable office is alleged and all effective and meaningful steps on the direction of the Hon’ble Court have been undertaken to trace out the missing person, the State would not be liable to pay any compensation because neither Indra Madhi was in illegal custody nor has any deficiency been shown by the State to search him out. He vehemently submits that this writ petition is not maintainable for a missing person. 5. What stems from rival contentions is:- Whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable in respect of a missing person? 6. Indisputable facts unfolded in this writ proceeding may be stated thus:- Indra Madhi was found missing since 16.09.2008 and on the information received from his son, police, opposite party nos.2 to 4, have taken all possible effective steps to trace him out. Even this court has monitored the same during pendency of this proceeding. The enquiry is not closed. Most importantly, Indra was not taken into custody by police. The petitioner does not hesitate to raise his suspicion that the police was combating „Naxals’ in that area. 6-A. Illegal detention of Indra Munda is not established. 6-B. In the decision of this court, reported in 2017(I) OLR 1126 (D.B.), Smt. Tulasi Naik Vrs. State of Orissa and four others, it is held as follows:- “xxxx Further from the undisputed stand of the opposite parties one thing is clear that the present one is not a case of illegal detention. 6-B. In the decision of this court, reported in 2017(I) OLR 1126 (D.B.), Smt. Tulasi Naik Vrs. State of Orissa and four others, it is held as follows:- “xxxx Further from the undisputed stand of the opposite parties one thing is clear that the present one is not a case of illegal detention. Had there been any illegal detention the authorities would not have issued paper publication twice in course of departmental proceeding in order to enable husband of the petitioner to participate in the same. Law is well settled that a writ of habeas corpus can only be issued in case illegal detention wrongful confinement not otherwise. In this context one can profitably refer to the Division Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh high Court as rendered in Sulochana Bai Vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2008 (1) M.P.L.J. 339 . Considering all these things we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.” 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kanu Sanyal Vrs. District Magistrate Darjeeling and others reported in (1973) 2 SCC 674 (Constitution Bench) have enunciated the principle concerning the nature and scope of a writ of habeas corpus as follows:- “17. The writ of habeas corpus is essentially a procedural writ. It deals with the machinery of justice, not the substantive law. The object of the writ is to secure release of a person who is illegally restrained of his liberty. The writ is, no doubt, a command addressed to a person who is alleged to have another person unlawfully in his custody requiring him to bring the body of such person before the Court, but the production of the body of the person detained is directed in order that the circumstances of his detention may be inquired into, or to put it differently, “in the order that appropriate judgment be rendered on judicial enquiry into the alleged unlawful restrain”. But the writ is primarily designed to give a person restrained of his liberty a speedy and effective remedy for having the legality of his detention enquired into and determined and if the detention is found to be unlawful, having himself discharged and freed from such restraint. The most characteristic element of the writ is its peremptoriness. But the writ is primarily designed to give a person restrained of his liberty a speedy and effective remedy for having the legality of his detention enquired into and determined and if the detention is found to be unlawful, having himself discharged and freed from such restraint. The most characteristic element of the writ is its peremptoriness. The essential and leading theory of the whole procedure is the immediate determination of the right to the applicant’s freedom and his release, if the detention is found to be unlawful. That is the primary purpose of the writ, that is its substance and end. The production of the body of the person alleged to be wrongfully detained is ancillary to this main purpose of the writ. It is merely a means for achieving the end which is to secure the liberty of t he subject illegally detained.” 8. Illegal confinement is the precondition to issue writ of habeas corpus. Though a writ of right, it is not a writ of course. This extraordinary remedy is not available against a missing person who is not disable by minority. The missing person might have exercised his volition to stay away and such volition is not violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. 9. When the writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable, the claim of compensation as advanced in course of argument for contravention of Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not arise in respect of a missing person. 9-A. All the three decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner have reiterated a different ratio in different context. In Bhim Singh Case (Supra) the petitioner was arrested and not produced before the Magistrate as mandated under Law and for the violation of Article 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution, compensation was awarded. The Court said:- “3. Xxxxxx. When a person comes to us with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation. Xxxx.” 9-B. In Mrs. Chandramani Das case (supra), the victim was compensated for being raped by railway employees in railway building. 9-C. In Mrs. In appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation. Xxxx.” 9-B. In Mrs. Chandramani Das case (supra), the victim was compensated for being raped by railway employees in railway building. 9-C. In Mrs. Nilabati Behera case (supra), the son of petitioner was found dead in police custody and “the mode of redress which commanded appropriate was to make an order of monetary relief in favour of the petitioner for custodial death of her son by ordering payment of compensation by way of exemplary damages.” 10. Now descending to the facts at hand, for the son petitioner, the missing of father is a disaster of epic proportion, but Law cannot grope in the dark. 11. Stepping to conclusion, we record that the writ petition is not maintainable. The WPCRL stands rejected. S. K. Mishra, J. - I agree.