The petitioner has sought for a mandamus, directing the respondents to pay him a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), as damages along with the future interest and costs, for incarcerating him for his illegal detention and for illegal registration of a false case, in violation of Fundamental Right and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

.2. Facts leading to the writ petition are as follows:

.The petitioner was working as Building supervisor and was also in-charge of maintenance of building of a Firm in Chennai. That on 15. 1998, at 9.30 a.m., when he was at the Airport, to export Mangoes, brought from Illedu Farms, Chunampet, by a van bearing Registration No. TN 01 J 4894, he was ensure dispatch of mangoes to Singapore. As it one of the procedures, namely, getting clearance from Custom authorities. While he was waiting for the representative of Sita World (sic) Travels, clearing agent of Ganapathy Marketing Company, through which company, mangoes were exported, the Inspector of Police, Meenambakkam, respondent herein, arrested him and forcibly took him to the Police Station.

.3. On the same day, the petitioner was informed that he was arrested under Section 75 of the City Police Act and later on, was also informed that he was arrested under Section 7(1) of Criminal Law Amendment Act. Though the petitioner gave telephone numbers of certain establishments, like, Lufthansa, Grindlays Banks, National Insurance Company, a government body housed in Kalpana Complex, to verify his credentials and background, the third respondent failed to do so and remanded the petitioner to judicial custody, for the abovesaid offences. Later on, he was released on bail. As the arrest and detention was made in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner filed Crl. O.P. No. 832 of 1999, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings, pending on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Alandur in Crime No. 363 of 1998, which was registered against the petitioner. The said proceedings were stayed.

4. The petitioner has further submitted that his name was not found in the FIR, but it was included only in the remand report, dated 15. 1998. Thus, the respondents have committed a procedural error. When the quash proceedings came up for final hearing on 12. 2001, the petitioner came to know that the charge sheet filed before the concerned Court, was returned for some defects to be complied with and that the same was also represented. However, the FIR was struck off by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 24. 2000, as per Section 468(ii) of Cr. P.C, as barred by limitation.

5. Thepetitioner has further submitted that the Police Officer concerned is duty bound to verify the credentials and bona fides of the petitioner before effecting arrest. The accusation of drunkenness, riotous and indecent officer at 10.30 a.m., in the Cargo Complex of the International Airport has caused mental agony and embarrassment to him, and to the members of the family. It is his further contention that though he was running from pillar to post to ascertain the reasons for his arrest and detention, he was not furnished with the copies of the required documents, which the respondents are Constitutionally bound to do so and taking advantage of the belated filing of the final report which resulted in the FIR being struck off, the falsity, in launching the prosecution against the petitioner, came to be buried and that the petitioner is deprived of an opportunity to prove his innocence.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that his constitutional right and liberty has been infringed by the careless act of the third respondent, purported to have been done under the guise of enforcement of law and order, which on facts, is nothing but an abuse of order, which on facts, is nothing but an abuse of power and violation of the procedure established by law. It is the grievance of the petitioner that when