1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.S.NAGAMUTHU H.C.P.(MD)No.954 of 2011 Lokathamma : Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thalaimuthu Nagar Police Station, Tuticorin District. 3.Nila Sea Foods (P) Ltd, Tuticorin. : Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition to direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenues, namely, Seetha, d/o Venkatrao, aged about 20 years, Geetha (minor), D/o.Venkatrao, aged about 17 years and Suvarna, D/o. Attarao, aged about 19 years before this Court and set them at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For R.1&2 : Mr.A.Ramar Addl.Public Prosecutor For R.3 : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai ORDER [Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU,J.] The petitioner hails from Arukkuvel, Vishakapattinam, in Andhra Pradesh District. She has been employed in Britto Sea Foods Export (P) Ltd, Tuticorin. The petitioner states that the detenues, namely, Seetha, daughter of Venkatrao, aged about 20 years, Geetha (minor), daughter of Venkatrao, aged about 17 years and Sugarna, daughter of Attarao, aged about 19 years are their relatives and they wanted to come to Tuticorin for their employment. Their family members have also agreed for the same. According to the petitioner, she brought all the three girls (herein after referred to as the 'detenues') to the Tamil Nadu. They were employed in the third respondent Company. Subsequently, the petitioner came out of her employment for some reason. But the girls continued to work in the third respondent Company. She has come to know that these three detenues have been kept as bonded labours in the third respondent Company. She was not allowed to see them. Since the petitioner is the responsible and the local guardian of the detenues, who are to be handedover to their parents, the petitioner tried her level best to take them back and to get them released from the third respondent. But all her efforts have not fructified. With these allegations, the petitioner has filed the present Habeas Corpus petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. When this Habeas Corpus petition came up for hearing on 14.11.2011, all the detenues were produced by the second respondent police. The petitioner was also present and she was represented by her Counsel. The third respondent, namely, Nila Sea Foods (P) Ltd was represented by Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai. On enquiry, the detenues informed this Court that they had been employed with the third respondent Company on their own volition and they were not detained by anybody as it was alleged by the petitioner. However, the detenues informed us that they wanted to go back to their native place provided their salary arrears are cleared off and transport facilities are made, of course with sufficient protection to them. They further submitted that they had apprehension that the petitioner or her associates, by name, Thulasikumar, may harm them. The detenues further informed this Court that the petitioner on giving assurance that she would secure employment for them, has received some amount from a different company. Since the detenues are employed in the third respondent company in order to get them employed in the said company, from whom, the petitioner has received money, according to the detenues, the present Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. The third respondent Company submitted that they were prepared to pay the salary arrears and also to provide transport facilities for the detenues. He further submitted that each of the detenue was entitled for a sum of Rs.3,600/- towards salary arrears. However, he assured that the third respondent would pay Rs.7,500/- to each of the detenue and also provide transport facilities to go to their native place in Andhra Pradesh. The said submission was recorded on 14.11.2011. 4. Having regard to the above submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, this Court passed an interim order in respect of the detenues, on 14.11.2011. The operative portion of the said order as found in para:6 reads as follows: “6. Having regard to the age of the detenues and the desire expressed by them that they are willing to go back to their respective native places, viz., Andhra Pradesh, the following interim order is passed:- ● The third respondent company is directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- [Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred] to each detenue by way of Demand Draft within a period of two days from today and also to arrange for train tickets for them for safe travel to their respective native places in Andhra Pradesh and the same shall be done within a period of three days from today. ● On getting the train tickets for their travel to their respective native places and after paying the said amount to the detenues by way of Demand Drafts, the third respondent company shall inform the second respondent police. ● The second respondent police, in turn, shall depute two women Police Constables to accompany the detenues to their respective native places in Andhra Pradesh, leave them in the custody of their respective mother/grandmother respectively, get authorization for the same and report the same before this Court thereafter. ● In the meanwhile, the detenues shall be taken back to the third respondent company in the company car and they shall be provided. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 ● shelter and food till their departure for their respective native places. ● It is further directed that the petitioner shall not in any manner disturb the detenues. Registry is directed to post this matter on 21.11.2011 for reporting compliance.“ 5. Today, when the matter was taken up, the second respondent, namely, the Inspector of Police, Thalaimuthu Nagar, Tuticorin District, has submitted a report stating that in pursuance of the order of this Court, the third respondent has paid a sum of Rs.7,500/- to each of the detenues and also provided transport facilities for them to go back to Andhra Pradesh. He has further stated that all the three detenues were handed over to the family members of the detenues. The report submitted in this regard by the third respondent contains the xerox copies of the train tickets and other details. The said report is recorded. Thus, we are satisfied that the interim order passed by this Court, on 14.11.2011 has been duly complied by the third respondent. In view of the same, nothing survives in the present Habeas Corpus petition and the same stands closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thalaimuthu Nagar Police Station, Tuticorin District. +1. CC to Mr.G.Prabha Rajadurai, Advocate, SR.No. 43289 ssm Order made in H.C.P.(MD)No.954 of 2011 Dated:- 09.12.2011 TR : 27.12.2011: 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/