ELUMALAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Of these there writ petitions, W.P. No. 6975 of 1981 is filed by Elumalai, Remand Prisoner No. 7330 confined in the Central Prison, Madras, W. P. No. 9894 of 1981 by Mr. Raghupathi, Advocate placed in the A Panel of the Madras District Committee for Legal Aid and Advice, on the instruction of Mr, P. Santiagorajan, Advocate of the Tirunelveli Bar, who has been appointed as duty counsel to visit the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, by the Tamil Nadu Legal Aid Board, and W. P. No. 10131 of 1981 by Mr. Jagadeesan, Advocate of the Madras Bar, placed in the A Panel of the Madras District Committee for Legal Aid and Advice, on the instruction of the above said Mr. P. Santiagorajan. The petitioner (Elumalai) in W. P. No. 6975 of 1981 has prayed for the issuance of a writ habeas corpus directing the respondents to set him at liberty, whereas the prayer in W. P. No. 9894 of 1981 is for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to set at liberty one Shanmugayya, son of Subba Reddia, detained in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, and W. P. No. 10131 of 1981 is for the issuance of a writ of habeas carpus directing respondents to set at liberty one V. Nagarajan, son of Venkatarama Iyer, the accused in Crime No. 40 of 1980 of Sankarankoil Police Station, and detained in the Central Prison. Palayamkottai. In all these three petitions, the first respondent if the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary, Home Department, and the other respondents are the Superintendent of the Central prison and the Inspector General of Prisons, and in W. P. No. 1894 of 1981 the Sub Inspector of Police, Courtallam Polic Station, is an additional respondent.

(2.) As a common question of law is involved in all these writ petitions, the decision of which would determine the validity of the detentions of the innumerable risoners detained in the various prisons of the State of Tamil Nadu for a considerable length of time, we are disposing of these three writ petitions by a common order.

(3.) Before discussing the law involved, we shall briefly set out the facts of each case. W. P. No. 6975 of 1981: The writ petitioner was arrested by Police under section 41(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code), two months before the filing of this writ petition, and detained in the Central Parson, Madras The case pending against him consequent upon the arrest was adjourned from time to time and the remand was extended without his being produced before the Court except on the date of the initial remand. The reason for his non-production from the Central Prison before the Court is stated to be the non-availability of escort. The petitioner contends that his detention is contrary to the provisions of law and the principles of natural justice and as such it is illegal.