RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, cousin of the detenu Manoharan, son of Rathinam, aged 55 years has filed the present petition seeking production of the detenu, said to be under illegal detention of respondents, before this Court and to set him at liberty.

(2.) Earlier, Habeas Corpus Petition in HCP.No.2096/2017 filed by son-in-law of detenu seeking to quash the detention order dated 21.10.2017, came to be closed by this Court under order dated 21.12017, on an erroneous representation on the part of respondents informing that the order under challenge, was revoked by the Advisory Board. On perusal of papers we find that the said Revocation Order pertain to some other detenu and not the detenu in the instant case. Therefore, detenu was sought to be detained in prison. However, the present petition came to be filed on the ground of illegal detention of detenu by the respondents.

(3.) A perusal of the Detention order shows that the same was passed by the District Collector and District agistrate, Villupuram District ; but the 2nd respondent in the present petition is shown as the District Magistrate and District Collector, Cuddalore District. It is the duty of the learned counsel for petitioner to cause due verification before filing of the matter and without causing due and proper verification, petitioner cannot seek compensation for the illegal custody of detenu. Hence, this Court is not inclined to impose an order of cost against respondents. However, on merits, we proceed to consider and pass orders on the detention order dated 21.10.2017 passed by the District Magistrate and the District Collector, Villupuram District, 2nd respondent herein.