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

2017 Supreme(Mad) 2636

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
K. Arulinbathevar alias Ayya - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by Joint Secretary to Government & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(MD) No.24132 of 2016
Decided On : 13-07-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Titus
For the Respondents: Mr. T.S. Mohammed Mohideen Addl. Govt. Pleader

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 21 and 22(4) - Foreigners Act, 1946 - Section 3(2)(e) and 3(2)(3)- Passports Act, 1967 - Section 12(1)(a) - Petition has been filed, seeking to call for the records of G.O.SRIII/942-2 and quash same and allow petitioner to reside along with his wife and children at refugees Camp - According to petitioner, he is a Srilankan refugee and has come to India with his family sometime because of the ethnic violence in Sri Lanka - Petitioner and his family were provided accommodation in the Srilankan Refugee Camp - While so, petitioner was arrested by the Q-Branch Police in connection with a case in Crime No.1 for offences of the Foreigners Act, 1946 r/w of Foreigners Order 1948 and was remanded to judicial custody by the Judicial Magistrate, and was lodged in the Sub Jail, allegation in Crime No.1 is that this petitioner and others had collected money from various Srilankan refugees on the promise of taking them by sea to and settling them there - On reading of the FIR in Crime No.1 it is seen that complainant is one ,who is also a Srilankan refugee and he has alleged that the petitioner and others had collected - From several families and taken them by boat upto Coast and after relieving of their monies brought them back saying that Police had got scent of the operation and that the voyage will be thwarted – Held, Supreme Court had occasion to consider fundamental right of a foreigner to life and liberty under Art.21 of the Constitution - In respect of the right to be heard, the Apex Court stated, that there cannot be any hard and fast rule about the manner in which a person concerned has to be given an opportunity to place his case Supreme Court further observed, that it was not claimed that if authority concerned had served a notice before passing the impugned order, the petitioners could have produced some relevant material in support of their claim of acquisition of citizenship, which they failed to do, in the absence of a notice - Court have already stated, that reasonable restriction imposed on certain foreigners was in the interests of the security of the State and further those persons have been furnished with an opportunity to obtain permission of the concerned Collector, before they could seek to go out of the special refugee camps - Court has specifically stated that he should be lodged in a Special Camp and therefore, it became imperative for the State Government to pass the impugned order for lodging him in Special Camp at Trichy. petitioner, having been involved in an offence here, cannot claim as a matter of right to be lodged in Refugee camp – In result, this petition is devoid of merits and same is accordingly dismissed.

ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed, seeking to call for the records of G.O.SRIII/942-2/2016 dated 11.08.2016 and quash the same and allow the petitioner to reside along with his wife and children at Coimbatore refugees Camp.

2. According to the petitioner, he is a Srilankan Tamil refugee and has come to India with his family sometime in the year 2009, because of the ethnic violence in Sri Lanka. The petitioner and his family were provided accommodation in the Srilankan Refugee Camp at Malayandipattinam, Kottapattu, Coimbatore. While so, the petitioner was arrested by the Q-Branch Police on 28.06.2016 in connection with a case in Crime No.1 of 2016 for offences under Sections 120-B, 370 and 420 IPC and Section 12(1)(a) of the Passports Act, 1967, Section 14(b) and (c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 r/w Para 5 of Foreigners Order 1948 and Section 14-C of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and was remanded to judicial custody by the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel and was lodged in the Sub Jail, Nagercoil.

3. The allegation in Crime No.1 of 2016 is that this petitioner and others had collected money from various Srilankan refugees on the promise of taking them by sea to Australia and settling them there. On reading of the FIR in Crime No.1 of 2016, it is seen that the complainant is one Rajesh, who is also a Srilankan refugee and he has alleged that the petitioner and others had collected around Rs.1,50,000/- from several families and taken them by boat upto Kanyakumari Coast and after relieving of their monies brought them back saying that Police had got scent of the operation and that the voyage will be thwarted. Eleven accused in Crime No.1 of 2016 filed bail application in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.16667 and 17085 of 2016 before this Court and they were granted bail on the following conditions:

“4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court would direct release on bail on their executing surety bonds. The petitioners shall be required to stay at Special Camp at Trichy pending committal in P.R.C.No.48 of 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel and conclusion of trial.

5. Interim bail already granted is made absolute.”

4. Following this order, the Sessions Court, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil granted bail to the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.3049 of 2016 on 05.10.2016 with the following conditions:

“In the result, the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his executing surety bonds and on condition that the petitioner shall stay at Special Camp, Trichy pending committal in PRC No.48/2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel and conclusion of trial.”

5. In view of the above, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed the impugned order dated 11.08.2016, under which the petitioner was directed to be lodged in the Special Camp for Sri Lankan immigrants/refugees at Trichy, challenging which, this writ petition has been filed.

6. Heard Mr. S. Titus, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the State Government in exercise of the power under Section 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (in short “the Act, 1946); that under the said provision, it is only the Central Government, which has the power and not the State Government; that before passing an order under Section 3(2)(3) of the Act, 1946, the petitioner must be heard; that he has been granted bail by the Court and therefore, he cannot be detained in the Special Camp, as that would amount to restricting his right to free movement and thereby violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; that he must be permitted to live with his family in the Coimbatore Refugee Camp like any other free person; that the Special Camp at Trichy was constituted by G.O.(2D) No.274 dated 26.07.2011 only to accommodate LTTE Cadres and its Supporters and therefore, the petitioner, who is neither a member of LTTE nor its supporter, ca













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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top