LINGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Lingam, Srilankan Tamilian has filed HCP.No.158 of 2004, seeking to issue a writ of Habeas corpus with regard to the detention order passed under the provisions of Foreigners Act, 1946 in G.O.No.SR.III.3344-18/94 dated 24.05.1995 by the first respondent and quash the same as well as to issue a direction to the respondents to set him at liberty, who is now lodged at Special Camp for Srilankans at Chengalpattu. Another Srilankan citizen by name Vasanthan @ Vasanthakumar has prayed for a similar relief in HCP.No.161 of 2004.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the petition in HCP.No.158 of 2004, the petitioner has stated that due to ethnic problem in Srilanka, he came to India with his family in the year 1990 and registered his name before the Collector, Thanjavur as a Srilanka refugee. On 01.06.1991, he was apprehended by the C.B.I. Police at Vedaranyam in connection with Rajiv Gandhi murder case and he was kept in Vedaranyam Police Station. On 10.06.1991, he was taken to Malligai Illam (then CBI Office) and was kept in the illegal custody till 14.08.1991. Thereafter, i.e., on 14.08.1991, he was detained under Section 3 (2) (e) of the Foreigners Act and lodged in the Special Refugee Camp at Saidapet, Chennai. Though he was cited as a witness in the Rajiv Gandhi murder case, he was not examined as witness before any of the Courts. He was under continuous detention without any opportunity, preferred an application to the first respondent to permit him to go to Srilanka or any other Country of his choice. He filed HCP.No.657 of 1995 before this Court and by order dated 08.08.1995, after recording the statement made by the learned Public Prosecutor, namely, he would be permitted to leave this Country for Srilanka at his own costs, this Court disposed of the said HCP., as infructuous. On 18.09.1999, the first respondent passed an order permitting the second respondent to question the inmates of the special refugee camps and record the statements of suspects, who had information / knowledge of the murder of Rajiv Gandhi. The petitioner is neither an accused nor a witness in the Rajiv Gandhi murder case. He was enquired by the second respondent on many occasions. No order was passed by the second respondent, after enquiry. He made several representations to the first respondent seeking permission to go abroad. In the absence of any favourable order, having no other remedy, the petitioner filed the present petition. Similar averments have been made by the other petitioner in HCP.No.161 of 2004.

(3.) Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by drawing our attention to Memorandum of Action Taken on the Final Report of Jain Commission of Inquiry would contend that in the absence of any specific reference to the petitioners and in the absence of any material, the respondents are not justified in keeping the petitioners in the illegal custody from 1991.