Illegal detention is a serious matter.

P.D. Dinakaran, J.

This petition has an unpleasant history. We are grieved at the turn of events in this case, viz., making a normal man, a mentally ill person, in order to grab his property fraudulently, by perverting or subverting the provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987 (for brevity, "the Act") which is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to treatment and care of mentally ill persons, to make better provision with respect to their property and affairs and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

1. The facts, so far as relevant, leading to the filing of the present petition are as under:

The petitioner, claiming herself as a neighbour of the detenu – Deenadayalan has filed this habeas corpus petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce Deenadayalan, Son of Balu Reddiar, aged about 54 years, now under illegal custody of the respondents before this Court and set him at liberty. It is alleged that the detenu is kept under the illegal detention, under the guise of a reception order dated 28. 2007 said to have been passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, exercising the power conferred under Sections 22 and 24 of the Mental Health Act, at the instance of the third respondent herein, who is nonetheless the brother-in-law of the detenu (detenus sisters husband) and the brother of the fourth respondent, a sitting M.L.A. of Tambaram Assembly Constituency.

2. In fact, the very same petitioner, on an earlier occasion, complaining that the said Deenadayalan was under the illegal detention of the third respondent herein moved H.C.P. No.1114 of 2007 seeking production of the detenu before this Court and to set the detenu at liberty. The third respondent herein contested the said H.C.P.No.1114 of 2007 submitting that the detenu was mentally retrenched and he was undergoing treatment in the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk.

3. After hearing all the parties, this Court, by order dated 8. 2007 disposed of the said H.C.P.No.1114 of 2007, as under:

"4. Some medical prescriptions were produced before us. We ourselves examined the detenu. The detenu has stated that he has been taken forcibly by four persons and subsequently, the second respondent had joined them. The detenu has further stated that even though, he is being treated in some Hospital, he has been treated only as an out patient and he does not have any mental derangement. We put to him general questions, for which, he answered and he appears to be a normal person. The detenu has further stated that he would not like to stay with the second respondent and he would like to stay in his own house available at Villivakkam. The detenu is set at liberty and he is free to stay, wherever he likes."

2. 4. On 8. 2007, the learned counsel who appeared for the petitioner in H.C.P.No.1114 of 2007, however, requested the Court to post the matter for being mentioned complaining that immediately after the detenu was set at liberty on 8. 2007, on the same day evening, he was again taken by and kept under the illegal custody of the third respondent and his wife, who is nonetheless the sister of the detenu.

2. 5. The matter was posted on 18. 2007, and was adjourned to 18. 2007 and then to 18. 2007 at the request of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. On 18. 2007, as it was reported by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that he was not able to obtain all necessary instructions, the H.C.P.No.1114 of 2007 was closed as under:

"This Habeas Corpus petition had been disposed of by an order dated 8. 2007. Thereafter, the matter was listed under the heading "for being mentioned" as the learned counsel for the petitioner stated before Court that the detenu, Deenadayalan was not available in his house at Villivakam. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor had been requested to obtain instructions on this matter. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not able to obtain all necessary instructions. Be that as