Dismissed

Priya v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Madras HC4 Oct 2016HCP/1000/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 seeking to quash a detention order and release the detenu was dismissed as infructuous because the Government of Tamil Nadu had already revoked the detention order via G.O.Rt.No.2890 dated 30.06.2016.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous as the detention order was revoked by the State Government via G.O.Rt.No.2890 dated 30.06.2016.

Priya Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04-10-2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN

¶7

H.C.P.No.1000 of 2016

¶8

Priya .... Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Department of Prohibition and Excise(Home), Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police, Commissioner Office, Vepery, Chennai-600 007 ... Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the impugned order in No.466/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 23.04.2016, on the file of second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenue Jothibas, son of Velu, aged about 24 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

(Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM,J.)

¶14

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the records relating to detention order, dated 23.4.2016, passed in No.466/BCDFGISSSV/2016, by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as the second respondent herein, against the

¶15

detenu, by name Jothibas, son of Velu and quash the same.

¶16

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has represented that the detention order in question has already been revoked by the Government of Tamil Nadu, by virtue of G.O.Rt.No.2890, dated 30.06.2016, and a copy of the same has been submitted for perusal and actually this Court has perused the same and found that the detention order in question has already been revoked.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid factual circumstances, the relief sought in the petition has become infructuous.

¶18

In fine, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True Copy//
To
1. The Joint Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009
2 The Secretary to the Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai City Police,
Commissioner Office, Vepery,
Chennai-600 007
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
H.C.P.No. 1000 of 2016
CO(CNR)
CP 24/10/2016

¶19

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

Priya v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priya v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saraswathi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

R.Senthil Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S. Madras Elastomers Ltd. Vs Kamal Chand

Jayanthi 21 Years Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

D.Anjali Vs the Secretary to the

Mrs.Divyabharathi Vs the Secretary to Government