28 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Andrew Dunlop, esq.,a British-born subject, and a Provincial Magistrate at Poona. After considerable discussion, the writ was ordered to issue, and was made returnable to the Court on the 15th of September then next, it was translated by order of the Court into the Mahratta language, and duly served on Pandoorung Ramchander. A return was made and filed to this writ in these terms :–
“I, Pandoorung Ramchander Dumdurre, am the relation and friend of the Peishwah. I never in my life have been the servant of the English Government, or of the English. At the time the Company’s Government took this country, they gave me word I should live without fear or molestation. Depending upon that, I remained in Poona; and as for my grandson, Moro Ragonath, I am his grandfather; he was placed under my care, that I might take care of him according to the usual custom. He, the said boy, is fourteen years old; for that reason, according to the Shaster of the Hindoos, he is without knowledge; he is bound to behave agreeably to the orders of the person under whose charge he lives; and further, it is necessary to take care of the property and wealth of the boy; more than this, there is nothing, and there is nothing more done (by me to him,) than by those to whose care a boy is delivered, or the usual orders of seniority in a Hindu’s family. Should I by any chance do more or less, the same being made known to the Adawlut at Poona, it would be immediately stopped. After Moro Ragonath’s grandmother died, he was delivered into my charge, according to the rule, and I agreed to undertake that charge, in order that my grandson’s wealth might not be ruined. Without the leave of those by whose authority I took the charge upon my head, I cannot relinquish it. Dated 10th of September 1828, 1st of Bhadrapad Sood Shalabar 1750, the name of the year being Surodharee.”
This return was objected to on two grounds; firstly, that there was no return, “paratum habeo corpus ;” secondly, that no reason was stated to excuse the disobedience, but that the writ ought not to have issued, which was a reason the Court ought not to receive; and an attachment against Pandoorung Ramchander was moved for. The Judges took time to deliberate on the question, and on the 29th of September they delivered their judgement, that a writ of alias habeas corpus should issue, returnable on the 10th of October then next.