Dismissed

Mrs.Divyabharathi v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC4 Oct 2016HCP/991/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought habeas corpus to quash a detention order and release the detenu. The court noted the order had already been revoked by the Government of Tamil Nadu, rendering the petition infructuous, and dismissed it.

What did the court decide?

The writ of habeas corpus praying for the quashing of the detention order and release of the detenu was dismissed because the order was already revoked.

Mrs.Divyabharathi Vs the Secretary to Government — Quashing and FIR | 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.991 of 2016

¶8

Divyabharathi .... Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶11

Fort St.George

¶12

Chennai

¶13

2.The Commissioner of Police,

¶14

Egmore, Chennai ... Respondents

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to call for the records and quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.409/2016 dated 9.4.2016 and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenu, viz.,Jaffer, aged about 22 years, son of Abdul Waheed, before this Hon'ble Court and release him from Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set him at liberty.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Edwin Jeyakumar

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, APP

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

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 9.4.2016, passed in BCDFGISSSV No.409/2016, by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as the second respondent herein, against the detenu, by name Jaffer, son of Abdul Waheed and quash the same.

¶21

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has represented that the detention order in question has already been revoked by the Government of Tamil Nadu, by virtue of G.O.Rt.No.2206, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 18.05.2016, and a copy of the same has been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for perusal and actually this Court has perused the same and found that the detention order in question has already been revoked.

¶22

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

¶23

In fine, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed.

¶24

Sd/Asst.Registrar

¶25

/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
msk
To
1.Joint Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George
Chennai-600 009
2. The Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George
Chennai-600 009
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Egmore, Chennai
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5. The Joint Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 9
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
CO-CNR
ths : 19.10.2016
H.C.P.No. 991 of 2016

¶26

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

Mrs.Divyabharathi v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Divyabharathi v. the Secretary to Government

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

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

R.Subramani Vs the Secretary to Government