Dismissed

Anandhan (a) Lorry (a) Japan, v. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

Madras HC12 Sept 2016HCP/821/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 for the release of a detenu detained for one year under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, holding the petition infructuous as the detention period had expired. The court directed respondents to release the petitioner forthwith unless incarceration in another case.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Respondents directed to set the detenu at liberty forthwith unless required to be incarcerated for another case.

Anandhan (a) Lorry (a) Japan, Vs State of Tamil… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.09.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.821 of 2016

¶7

Anandhan @ Lorry @ Japan ... Petitioner vs.

¶8

1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶9

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chenani Police, Vepery, Chenna-600 007 ... Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the entire records relating to the petitioner's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, vide detention order, dated 08.09.2015, on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings BCDFGISSSV No.889 of 2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner namely Anandhan @ Lorry @ Japan, son of Sekar, aged 23 years before this Court and set the petitioner at liberty from detention, now petitioner detained at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan

¶12

For Respondents :Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren,A.P.P.for R1 and R2

¶13

ORDER

¶14

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

¶15

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records relating to detention order, dated 08.09.2015, passed in BCDFGISSSV No.889 of 2015, by the detaining authority,

¶16

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

¶17

who has been arrayed as the second respondent herein, against the detenu, by name Anandhan @ Lorry @ Japan, Son of Sekar and quash the same.

¶18

It is averred in the petition that the sponsoring authority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority. On the basis of the averments made in the affidavit, the detaining authority has derived a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu, by name, Anandhan @ Lorry @ Japan, is a habitual offender and ultimately branded him as 'Goonda', by way of passing the impugned detention order and in order to quash the same, the detenu himself has filed the present petition.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the detention order has been passed on 8.9.2015 only for a period of one year and the same has elapsed.

¶20

Considering the fact that the detention order in question has been passed on 8.9.2015 only for a period of one year and the said period has already elapsed, the relief sought in the petition has become infructuous and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

In fine, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed. The respondents are directed to set the detenu, by name, Anandhan @ Lorry @ Japan, at liberty, if he is in custody, forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with some other case.

¶22

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar msk

¶23

¶24

1.The Secretary to Government,

¶25

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶26

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chenani Police, Vepery, Chenna-600 007

¶27

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

¶28

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai.

¶29

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras

¶30

5.The Joint Secretary to Government &

¶31

Law and order Secretariat Fort St.George Chennai-9

¶32

H.C.P.No.821 of 2016

¶33

aa23/09/2016

¶34

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

Anandhan (a) Lorry (a) Japan, v. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anandhan (a) Lorry (a) Japan, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.S.Suresh Kumar Vs The Registrar

Jagan Vs the Inspector of Polcie

S. Venkatesan, Age 30 Years, Vs State Rep. District Superinten

Union of India, Vs S. Vennila

Mrs. P. Mythili, Age 25 Years, Vs the State Rep. by Commissioner

Chandaramoorthy Vs the Superintendent of Police