Vs
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed a writ of habeas corpus petition filed by the wife regarding the illegal detention of her husband. The Court held that an eight-day delay in deciding the petitioner's representation violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution, vitiating the detention order.
What did the court decide?
The impugned detention order dated 11.01.2014 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless custody is required in another case.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.06.2014
CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM
H.C.P. No.340 of 2014
Naziya Fahmidha ...Petitioner Vs. 1. The Secretary to Government, Co-operative, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore. 3. The Additional Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, (Department of Consumer Affairs), Room No.270, Krish Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. ..Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.C3/DO/03/2014 dated 11.1.2014 against the the petitioner's husband namely Mr.Syed Ali, son of Abdul Hameed, aged 36 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Paul Nobel Devakumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Govindarajan Addl. Public Prosecutor, For R1 & R2 Mr.V.Parivallal, SCGSC For R3
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the eight-day delay in disposing of the petitioner's representation violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Whether the detention order passed under the Prevention of Black Marketing Act is liable to be quashed due to procedural lapse.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Naziya Fahmidha
- respondent
The Secretary to Government, Co-operative, Food and Consumer Protection Department
- respondent
The District Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddalore District
- respondent
The Additional Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court