SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Mad) 1045

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. S. MISHRA
Mrs. Meera Nireshwalia - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu and Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 15671 of 1989
Decided On : 20 November 1990

Appearing Advocates:Geetha Ramaseshan, J. R. K. Bhavanandam, A. L. Somayaji, Aiyar, Dolia, S. Rajeswaran, Habibulla Basha, A. Rajan, Advocates.

A police officer cannot arrest and detain a person without a lawful authority. A magistrate cannot order the detention of a person in a mental hospital without making an order in writing for detention for a period not exceeding ten days at a time, if in his opinion, it is necessary to enable the medical officer to determine whether such alleged lunatic is a person in respect of whom a medical certificate may be properly given.

Headnote:

WRIT - MANDAMUS - POLICE - LUNACY ACT - ILLEGAL DETENTION - COMPENSATION - POLICE OFFICERS - LIABILITY - STATE LIABILITY - INQUIRY - POLICE MISCONDUCT - POLICE EXCESSES - POLICE OFFICERS - LIABILITY - STATE LIABILITY - INQUIRY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a mother of two daughters already married, and a son settled in business, was threatened and harassed, by her husband, she has alleged, who threatened to sell the property, the ideas which she always opposed on the ground that she had made the major contribution towards the purchase of the house by pledging her jewellery and raising money. She filed O.S. No. 7325 of 1985 before the City Civil Court, Madras, for injunction restraining the seventh respondent (husband) and his transferee from in any manner interfering with her possession of the property. A memo of compromise was filed in the said suit on 21-7-1986 between the seventh respondent and the petitioner stating that the seventh respondent never had any intention to evict her from the premises except by due process of law and accordingly undertaking not to evict except under due process of law. In view of the said undertaking the suit was dismissed.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the petitioner was subjected to maltreatment, denied liberty, and forcibly evicted from her house by the respondents. The Court also found that the petitioner's dispossession of the house was a result of collusion between the respondent-officials and respondents 8 and 9, and that the petitioner was detained in the mental hospital without any lawful authority.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was subjected to maltreatment, denied liberty, and forcibly evicted from her house by the respondents? 2. Whether the petitioner's dispossession of the house was a result of collusion between the respondent-officials and respondents 8 and 9? 3. Whether the petitioner was detained in the mental hospital without any lawful authority?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner was subjected to maltreatment, denied liberty, and forcibly evicted from her house by the respondents. The Court relied on the evidence of the petitioner, the counter-affidavits of the respondents, and the relevant provisions of the Lunacy Act. 2. The Court held that the petitioner's dispossession of the house was a result of collusion between the respondent-officials and respondents 8 and 9. The Court relied on the agreement between the seventh respondent and respondents 8 and 9, in which they acknowledged that the petitioner was in possession of the house and that she would be evicted only in accordance with law. 3. The Court held that the petitioner was detained in the mental hospital without any lawful authority. The Court relied on the provisions of the Lunacy Act, which require a magistrate to make an order in writing for detention for a period not exceeding ten days at a time, if in his opinion, it is necessary to enable the medical officer to determine whether such alleged lunatic is a person in respect of whom a medical certificate may be properly given.

Final Decision: The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner a sum of two lakhs of rupees as compensation. The Court also directed the first respondent-State of Tamil Nadu to institute a high-level inquiry into the conduct of the fourth and fifth respondents and to suitably punish them.

Judgment :-

The Petitioner Mrs. Meera Nireshwalia, who lived with her husband S. Nireshwalia (7th Respondent) in a house in Anna Nagar allotted under the Anna Nagar Housing Board L.I.G. Scheme, is the petitioner. A mother of two daughters already married, and a son settled in business, she, however, had to suffer first on account, as alleged, of non-payment of the instalments to the Housing Board by her husband, who, it is alleged, first had agreed to transfer the allotment of the house in her name, but later obtained the sale deed from the Housing Board in his name without her knowledge. She was threatened and harassed, by her husband, she has alleged, who threatened to sell the property, the ideas which she always opposed on the ground that she had made the major contribution towards the purchase of the house by pledging her jewellery and raising money. She filed O.S. No. 7325 of 1985 before the City Civil Court, Madras, for injunction restraining the seventh respondent (husband) and his transferee from in any manner interfering with her possession of the property. A memo of compromise was filed in the said suit on 21-7-1986 between the seventh respondent and the petitioner stating that the seventh respondent never had any intention to evict her from the premises except by due process of law and accordingly undertaking not to evict except under due process of law. In view of the said undertaking the suit was dismissed.

2. In April, 1989, the petitioner found that the door and the structures of her house were damaged by some miscreants unknown to her and that the seventh respondent had, in the meantime, already sold the house to respondents 8 and 9 under a sale deed dated 30-9-1988 followed by an agreement between the seventh respondent on the one hand and respondents 8 and 9 on the other, containing as one of the Clauses,

"the first party (7th respondent) affirms and undertakes to try his best to persuade his wife to vacate the property. In the event of failure of his efforts the second party is at liberty to take all necessary and appropriate action lawfully permissible to obtain vacant possession of the said property. The first party on his part will render all necessary assistance, support and help required to achieve this abovesaid purpose." *

3. On 7th of July, 1989, according to the petitioner, a constable from the Anna Nagar Police Station came to her house and informed her that she must meet Nandakumar, Inspector, K-4 Police Station, Anna Nagar (5th Respondent) with reference to her complaint with respect to the damages to the door and the structures of the house in April, 1989. She went to see the 5th respondent at about 10-30 a.m. on that day itself. When, however, she started telling him about her complaint, the 5th respondent called a woman constable Ms. Poonithai and told her to search her (Petitioner) and told her that there was a complaint against her. She wanted to know about the nature of the complaint and also to consult a lawyer or a Magistrate. It is alleged.

".......... I was immediately assaulted and severely dragged with the help of ten policemen (as I refused to get up and they had only one Woman constable). I was kept in the lock up for quite some time and then taken to the office of the 3rd respondent and kept in the van till evening. I submit that subsequently I was taken to the Kilpauk Mental Hospital the same evening. I was called insane and abused by the policemen en-route. As the office of the 6th respondent was closed in the evening, I was brought once again to the Anna Nagar Police Station. I submit that en route I underwent untold miseries with all the constables called me insane and insulting and humiliating me in the most brutal manner."

" I submit that in the meantime, when I was brought back to the Anna Nagar Police Station, I was spotted by two of my neighbour one Mr. Ramanathan who is a former staffer of "The Hindu" and his daughter Prema. They tried to come to my rescue and told the poli





















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top