Dismissed

Arun v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Madras HC3 Oct 2016HCP/981/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a habeas corpus petition challenging an order of detention of a third party under the Tamil Nadu Act 1982. The court noted that the Government had already revoked the detention order before the issue was argued, rendering the petition infructuous and dismissing it.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as the detention order was already revoked by Government Order, making the relief sought infructuous.

Arun 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 : 03.10.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN

H.C.P.No.981 of 2016

Arun

... Petitioner

Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009

¶11

The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 09.03.2016 in BCDFGISSSV No.269/2016, is detaining the detenu under 2(F) of Tamilnadu Act 1982, as a GOONDA and quash the same and direct the Respondents to produce the detenu Anand, S/o.Asokan, aged about 24 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶13

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records relating to order of detention, dated 09.03.2016, passed in No.269/BCDFGISSSV/2016, by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein, against the detenu, by name Anand, S/o Asokan and quash the same.

¶14

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

¶15

2.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has represented that the detention order in question has already been revoked by the Government of Tamil Nadu by virtue of G.O. Rt.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.2234, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XIII) Department dated 18.05.2016 and to that effect, a copy of the same has been submitted for perusal and this Court has perused the same and ultimately found that the detention order in question has already been revoked.

¶16

Considering the fact that the detention order in question has already been revoked by the Government, the relief sought in the petition has become infructuous.

¶17

In fine, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(J)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sra
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police, Chennai.
3. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public(Law & Order),
Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶18

H.C.P.No.981 of 2016

¶19

RP(CO) CA(22/10/2016)

¶20

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

Arun v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun 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

K.Krishnasamy Vs S.Vijayakumar

Anandhi Vs The Chief General Manager

G.Muthukumaran, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Mahendran Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Amlu Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

Saraswathi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu