D VEERASEKARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents hereinfrom interfering with the petitioner's personal liberties.

(2.) THE petitioner, a practising Advocate of this Court having more than ten years standing had been engaged by Tamil refugees from Lanka ever since 1983 and he has appeared in many cases, for them. THE petitioner professional services were requisitioned by the LTTE men also in several cases. According the petitioner, certain LTTE persons belong to the group of his clients. THE allegation in the affidavit is that he is connected with them purely professionally giving them advice and also defending them in various cases, including taking legal action on their on several matters. It is to fulfil his professional engagement, he proceeded to Pudukkottai in a vehicle on 31.1.1991 and reached Pudukkottai on 1.2.1991. On reaching Pudukkot he was taken by the local special Branch police to the office of the Superintendent of Pudukkottai on the pretext of some interrogations as to why the petitioner should come the way from Madras to Pudukkottai to meet his clients and was subjected to several probing questions. THE petitioner explained that the propose of his visit was profession to gather particulars and instructions for moving bail application. THE petitioner also gave a petition to the local Bar Council. THE office bearers of the Bar Council complained to the Superintendent of Police about the high-handed action in subjecting petitioner an advocate to interrogation. THE local Superintendent of Police was very that the petitioner should not move the bail application for the said accused nor should petitioner take any action for the return of the property seized in the case. However, petitioner gave some telephonic information to his colleague at Madras to file the application on behalf of eight persons in Crl.M.P.No.917 of 1991 on 4.2.1991 and it disposed of by Mrs.Padmini Jesudurai, J., It is alleged that after great persuasion by members of the Bar of Pudukkottai, the petitioner was allowed to come back to Madras without getting full instructions. He was not allowed to meet the concerned accused. Subsequently, on 4th February, 1991 when he was in his house at about midnight, a team police officers headed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police made thorough search house and asked him several questions regarding the LTTE men. THE petitioner answered the best of his ability and impressed upon them that his meeting with the LTTE men purely professional and was not otherwise. THE petitioner also disclosed all the facts of the various cases in which he appeared for On that date he was taken to D-1 Triplicane Police station, where he was lodged wrongful confinement till 3 p.m. the next day. THEreafter he was taken to the Anna Square police station and kept there till about 4 p.m., from where he was taken to the Metropolitan Magistrate. Later he came to know that he was being detained on instructions from the superiors mainly to prevent from moving the bail application for the above persons and taking other legal action on their behalf by whom he was engaged for professional service. He was produced before the Magistrate by about 5 p.m. He has alleged that he detained as a preventive measure in connection with the All India Bandh Scheduled to place on 6th February, 1991. However, he was released on bail on his own bond and returned home. He has alleged in the affidavit that the police authorities have once started coming to his chamber on 7.2.1991 enquiring him and wanting him for purpose interrogation to the office of the 2nd respondent. It is also stated that on the night 7.2.1991, under instructions from the 2nd respondent, once again police came in search the petitioner to his house and told his family members that the petitioner should come Anna Square police station. It is alleged in the affidavit that with a view to prevent petitioner from contacting or appearing for the LTTE people and in particular to the people who were arrested recently and to deprive his professional legal service to them, the respondent had instructed the 2nd respondent to see that somehow the petitioner prevented. THE petitioner had also moved a petition for anticipatory bail before this Court 8.2.1991. On these allegations the petitioner has come up with this writ petition for the stated supra.

(3.) CONSIDERING the arguments of Mr.N.Ganapathi learned counsel for the petitioner Government Advocate I am of the view that such a wide prayer as asked for in petition cannot be granted. Taking the facts and circumstances of the case, suffice for say that the petitioner is entitled to carry on his profession as an Advocate for his clients accordance with the code of conduct prescribed for the Advocates under the Advocates which cannot be prevented by authorities. It is also made clear that if the authorities want make any interrogation on the petitioner on some alleged charges made against him, open to the authorities to interrogate the petitioner in the presence of an Advocate. made clear the petitioner can act as an advocate only. With these observations, the petition will stand dismissed. V.K. " Petition dismissed.