Dismissed

Rajkumar, v. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

Madras HC20 Dec 2016HCP/1307/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Father filed a Habeas Corpus petition seeking release of his detenu son under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Court dismissed the petition as infructuous as the detention period under the Act had expired by the time of hearing.

What did the court decide?

None. The petition was dismissed as infructuous because the period of detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 had already expired.

Rajkumar, Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.12.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

¶5

H.C.P.No.1307 of 2016

¶6

Rajkumar .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by the Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, The Commissioner Office, Vepery, Chennai-600 007. .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer: 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 detention order in Memo No.1156/BCDFGISSSV/2015, dated 2.11.2015, passed by the second respondent and to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son Manikandan @ Poonai, son of Rajkumar, aged about 22 years, the detenu, now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and to set him at liberty.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumar For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, Additional Public Prosecutor - - - - ORDER

¶10

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed, by the father of the detenu, namely, Manikandan @ Poonai, aged about 22 years, son of Rajkumar, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in No.1156/BCDFGISSSV/2015, dated 2.11.2015, passed by the second Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the

¶11

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

¶12

Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), branding him as a “Goonda”, in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and to set him at liberty forthwith.

¶13

2 At this stage of the hearing of the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the impugned detention order is dated 2.11.2015 and therefore, the period of detention, prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982, had already expired. Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition has become infructuous.

¶14

3 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner had not refuted the submission made by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondents.
4 In such circumstances, recording the submission of the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Habeas Corpus
Petition stands dismissed, as infructuous.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub-Assistant Registrar
vvk
To
1. The Secretary,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
The Commissioner Office,
Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.1307 of 2016
cp(co)
sp/27/1

¶15

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

Rajkumar, v. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar, v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atchiamma Vs the Principal Secretary to

R. Mari, Vs the Secretary to the Govt.

Mrs.R.Uma Vs State of Tamil Nadu

N.Pasunkili, F/49 Yrs Vs the Secretary to the

Indhira Vs the Secretary to the

Poomayil Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by