Dismissed

Porkodi v. the Superintendent of Prison

Madras HC24 Nov 2015HCP/3583/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition seeking transfer of her husband from Central Prison, Puzhal to Vellore without appearance. Acting on the respondent's submission that the detenu had already been transferred, the Court closed the petition, affirming administrative authority to re-locate prisoners.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed; direction to transfer refused as detenu already relocated to maintain discipline.

Porkodi Vs the Superintendent of Prison — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE : 24.11.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶7

H.C.P.NO.3583 OF 2015
Porkodi .. Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal
Chennai – 600 066
2. The Commissioner of Police
Chennai Police
Vepery, Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police
P-1, Pulianthope Police Station
Chennai. .. Respondents

¶8

Petition filed Under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the 1^st respondent to transfer the detenu, the petitioner's husband, Suresh @ Arcot Suresh, aged 38 years, S/o Venkatesan, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, to Central Prison, Vellore or to any other prison to save his life.

¶9

For Petitioner : No Appearance
For Respondents: Mr. A.N.Thambidurai,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(DELIVERED BY P.N.PRAKASH, J.)

¶10

This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to transfer the detenu, the petitioner's husband, Suresh @ Arcot Suresh, aged 38 years, S/o Venkatesan, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, to Central Prison, Vellore or to any other prison to save his life.

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

When the matter was taken up, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶13

On instructions, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the detenu was transferred from Central Prison, Puzhal to Central Prison, Vellore on 08.07.2015. Thereafter, on account of his conduct, he has now been further transferred to Central Prison, Cuddalore on 13.09.2015 and at present, the detenu is confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore.

¶14

Recording the said submission made by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, this petition is closed. However, it is made clear that in administrative exigency, the jail authorities are entitled to shift the prisoner/prisoners from one prison to another to ensure that discipline is maintained in the jail. GLN

¶15

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-VII)
/True Copy/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal
Chennai – 600 066
2. The Commissioner of Police
Chennai Police
Vepery, Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police
P-1, Pulianthope Police Station
Chennai.
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
5. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Cuddalore
H.C.P. NO.3583 OF 2015
CTK(CO)
sd : 10/12/2015

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Porkodi v. the Superintendent of Prison

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Porkodi v. the Superintendent of Prison

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabiya Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Syed Abudhakir Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

C.Anuradha Vs Inspector of Police

Smt.R.Nirmala Vs the State Rep by

Nalini Vs the State Rep by

J.Selvi Vs the Station House Officer