THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.21579 of 2009 Date: 20.10.2009 Between: Mrs. Champa Saha … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.21579 of 2009 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R. Varma) Heard Sri K.Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and also Sri Mahamood Ali, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. This Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner seeking to direct respondents to produce Lt. Colonel Krishna Kumar Nayar, aged about 50 years, resident of Bangalore, who is illegally detained in respondent No.3 organisation, before this Court and set him at liberty, forthwith. 3. At the outset, this writ petition is one among a few frivolous writ petitions filed before this Court and deserves to be dismissed. 4. From the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner had received some e-mails from another person at Hyderabad to the effect that one Lt. Colonel Krishna Kumar Nayar was illegally detained in the 3rd respondent organisation, which, in fact, is a rehabilitation center for treating the persons who are addicted to various kinds of vices. 5. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner got the e-mail messages sent by another inmate of the 3rd respondent organization stating that the alleged detenu has been detained illegally much against his will and wish by his own brother and he has been undergoing extreme trauma. 6. Upon receipt of notice from this Court, Sri Mahamood Ali, learned counsel representing the 3rd respondent organization brought to the notice of this Court that the alleged detenu was brought by his brother viz., Col. Unnikrishnan, who is retired as Colonel of the Army and now serving the World Bank in a foreign country, for treatment in the 3rd respondent organization as he is seriously addicted to alcohol and has been suffering from various associated problems since 2004. 7. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the superiors of the alleged detenu have also been corresponding with the 3rd respondent organization about the health condition and to continue the treatment to the alleged detenu. Of course, the kind of treatment that is being given by the 3rd respondent organization is not liked by the alleged detenu like any other similarly situated persons. 8. On the earlier occasion, learned counsel for the petitioner expressed serious concern about the condition of the alleged detenu. He went to the extent of apprehending that the alleged detenu would be shifted from the present place to another place only in order to make him disappear from the 3rd respondent organization and not available to the civic society. Some scandalous remarks have been made in the writ petition stating that the key person behind all the torture that is being allegedly meted out to the alleged detenu is the brother of the detenu himself. This Court, upon going through the said allegations, had made serious observation that in the absence of the said person, it is not expedient for the petitioner to make such serious averments and we went to the extent of making the brother of the alleged detenu as a party respondent to the writ petition. However, we requested the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent organization to ensure the presence of the brother of the alleged detenu, who is arrayed as respondent No.4 as per the orders of this Court, dated 13.10.2009, since his address is available with the said organization. 9. As directed by this Court, the brother of the alleged detenu viz., Col. Unnikrishnan is present before this Court today. He answered all the questions posed by this Court and expressed his serious concern about the comments made against him by the petitioner. He also contended that though he is a retired officer of the Army, the comments made against him in the writ affidavit may adversely affect his service, as he has been serving the World Bank in foreign country. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the writ petition by imposing heavy costs on the petitioner. 10. We have perused the entire record and the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4 and we are of the view that the petitioner ought to have acted with some sense of responsibility and without any verification of the factual aspects had made serious averments against Col. Unnikrishnan, who is the brother of the alleged detenu. 11. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner went to the 3rd respondent organization to see the alleged detenu, no response was given by the authorities of the 3rd respondent. This contention of the learned counsel cannot be believed for the reason that the details and the condition of the inmates of the 3rd respondent organization, who are being treated, would be made known to the close friends and relatives from time to time. In fact, the 3rd respondent organization is involved in social work, but not for any gain. 12. Further, there is nothing on record to show as to whether any such minimum amount of care and caution is taken by the petitioner to verify as to the veracity of the contents of the e-mail messages nor there was any attempt made by the petitioner to enquire from the person, who was said to be an inmate of the 3rd respondent organization along with the alleged detenu and allegedly sent those e-mail messages to her. It is also not known as to how the said person was allowed to possess a laptop or a computer or any other electronic device to enable him to send those e-mails. These are all the basic questions that ought to have been entertained by the petitioner before approaching the Court of law. No such attempt appears to have been made by the petitioner nor there is any material to believe the earlier submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in the absence of which, we are not prepared to accept such oral submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner. The persons like the petitioner, who are placed in such a situation, should take all reasonable care and caution before approaching the Court to ensure that the information received by them through e-mail or any other means was correct. But, nothing was stated by the petitioner in this regard. The only answer and explanation being offered by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a good Samaritan and, therefore, she immediately reacted to the e-mails sent by a person, who is in no way connected either with the petitioner or with the alleged detenu. The relationship between the alleged detenu and the person who sent the e-mails is that both are inmates of the 3rd respondent organization along with the alleged detenu and taking treatment to get de-addicted from his vices. Where a blind is leading another blind, reasonable care is expected to be taken. But, no such care obviously is present in this case. 13. Further, as it was reported to the Court that the alleged detenu was likely to be shifted from the place of 3rd respondent organization where he was lodged to a different place, this Court by order, dated 8.10.2009, directed the Secretary, A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, to rush to the 3rd respondent organization and verify as to whether the alleged detenu was available and also record his statement. Accordingly, the Secretary, A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee went to the 3rd respondent organization on the same day evening i.e., 8.10.2009 and recorded the statement of the alleged detenu wherein he expressed his unwillingness to stay in the 3rd respondent organization. The further details of the statement of the alleged detenu are not necessary, inasmuch as, his admission in the 3rd respondent organization was pursuant to the action initiated against him at the instance of the Army in which the alleged detenu has been serving. The report submitted by the Secretary, A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, along with the statement of the alleged detenu is made part of the record. 14. Therefore, what appears is that the alleged detenu was chronically addicted to vices and at the instance of the Army he was kept in the 3rd respondent organization, a non- Governmental organization, which renders voluntary free service to the persons who are addicted to various vices and help them in getting de-addicted from the said vices. In that process, the brother of the alleged detenu admitted him in the 3rd respondent organization for treatment, which cannot be termed as prejudicial to the rights or interests of the alleged detenu and the petitioner without verifying the veracity or otherwise of the contents of e-mail messages filed the present writ petition at the cost of the valuable time of the Court and also at the cost of valuable time and money of Col. Unnikrishnan, the brother of the alleged detenu, making serious allegations against him as if he is a villain in the whole episode. On the other hand, the brother of the alleged detenu, is very much interested in admitting the alleged detenu in an organization like the 3rd respondent, which deals with de-addicting of various vices to the persons like the alleged detenu. 15. For the foregoing, the averments made in the writ petition are apparently incorrect and fallacious and, as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 16. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with costs, at the stage of admission. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 20.10.2009. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.21579 of 2009 20.10.2009 (Msr)