AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arunachalam, J.—Petitioner Manoranjitham is the wife of Rajaratnam @ Nose who has been directed to reside in Special Camp for Sri
Lankan Immigrants/Refugees situated at Chingleput, identified and located by the District Collector, Chingleput. Impugned order dated 19.7.1993
was passed u/s 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (Central Act 31 of 1946). The order reads that Petitioner''s husband Rajaratnam @ Nose is a Sri
Lankan National and with a view to regulate his continuous presence, the impugned order was passed. Petitioner''s husband has also been
informed that she shall not leave the boundaries of the Special Camp for Sri Lankan Immigrants/Refugees, identified and located by the District
Collector, Chingleput, except with the permission of the Collector.
Mr. M. Bhaskar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, contended that subjective satisfaction had not been properly arrived at
to detain the Petitioner''s husband and the impugned order was not honest and real, but was fanciful and imaginary. He also contended that no
opportunity was furnished to the husband of the Petitioner before he was directed to reside in the Special Camp.
On these two grounds, we have heard Mr. I. Subramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. A Division Bench of this Court to which one
of us (Arunachalam, J.) was a party in a batch of writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 15044, 15958 and 15978 of 1991 and W.P. Nos. 20 and 21 of
1992) by its order dated 28.4.1992 had negatived similar contentions. The said Division Bench took the view that orders passed under the
Foreigners Act, cannot be deemed to be orders of detention. If reasonable restrictions have been imposed by the State to preserve its security for
the same is paramount. Only a small percentage of Sri Lankan who had earlier been entertained as refugees have been sought to be detained in
Special Refugees Camp, in view of the information available to the State Government that their movements had to be regulated. On the basis of the
law laid down by the other Division Bench with which we concur, it cannot be held that a fanciful and dishonest order had been passed without
arriving at the subjective satisfaction necessary. To reiterate the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. The same Division Bench
further held on the basis of the law laid down by the Supreme Court that, in respect of a foreigner, there cannot be any hard and fast rule about the
manner in which he has to be given an opportunity to place his case. As observed by the Supreme Court, it was not claimed that if the authorities
concerned had served a notice before passing the impugned order, Petitioners could have produced some relevant material in support of any claim
of acquisition of citizenship, which he failed to do so in the absence of a notice. Even such a consideration does not arise in the instant case, for
admittedly Petitioner''s husband is a Sri Lankan National. Only a reasonable restriction has been imposed in the interests of the security of the
State, with an opportunity to obtain permission for the concerned Collector, before he could seek to go out of the Special Refugees Camp.
Petitioner''s counsel placed before us the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mohammed Khan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1978
AWR 408). This decision was also taken note or by other Division Bench in W.P. Nos. 15044/91 and 15978/91 etc. batch. The Division Bench
held that a jurisdictional issue was involved in the case decided by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and there was no adjudication, and thus
principles of natural justice stood violated. Obviously, the law laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court will not apply to the instant case.
We are unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order. This habeas corpus petition has no merits. It shall stand dismissed.