SASIKALA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the wife of one Sureshkumar, S/o Natesu, the detenu, who has been detained under Section 3(2)(e) of Foreigners Act, 1946 (Central Act 31 of 1946) to regulate his detention by detaining him in the Special Camp at Chenglepet by the first respondent in G.O.No.SR.III/3505-2/2007, Public (SC) Department dated 27.12.2007. According to the petitioner, she is an Indian citizen and she had married the said Sureshkumar during the year 1999 and the marriage was also duly registered in the year 2003. Her husband, the detenu, is in possession of valid passport and visa upto the period 30.3.2008. In order to support the petitioner to take medical treatment at Edapal Infertility Centre from time to time, he used to come to Chennai. While so, on 1.2.2007, when he stayed in his relatives house at Door No.76, First Street, Sankarapuram, Chitlapakkam, Pallikaranai police limits, he was taken into custody under the Passport Act in Cr.No.1849 of 2007 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Pallikaranai Police Station and was remanded to judicial custody by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur. He was released on bail on 5.2.2008 but, even in front of the Central Prison, Puzhal, he was served with the impugned order and the same was executed. THEreafter, he was taken to Special Camp, Chenglepet. THErefore the impugned order is unjust, illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and though a representation dated 7.2.2008 was made, the same is of no avail. Hence the present petition.

(2.) MR.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no dispute that the detenu has a valid passport and he entered into India with a visa valid upto 30.3.2008 and though a case in Cr.No.1849 of 2007 on the file of Pallikaranai Police Station was registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 12(1)(A) of the Passport Act and Sections 472, 473, 475 read with 120-B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, the said First Information Report was quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.6512 of 2008 by order dated 24.3.2008. Hence the learned counsel would submit that when the very basis of the impugned order detaining the detenu in the Special Camp does not survive, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.

(3.) FROM the above, it is seen that the detenu with the authentication of a valid passport had entered into India and having been implicated in an offence of serious nature which required in the opinion of the detaining authority to regulate his continued presence in India. On facts, at the time when the impugned order was passed viz., on 27.12.2007, a case in Cr.No.1849 of 2007 was registered against the detenu and on which basis the impugned order came to be passed.