Dismissed

Nishoba, 23 Years v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

Madras HC15 Sept 2017HCP/1331/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition filed for a writ of habeas corpus to revoke a detention order was dismissed as infructuous. The Court held the relief sought was no longer available because the impugned detention order had already been revoked by the relevant authorities prior to the hearing.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was dismissed as infructuous due to the prior revocation of the detention order.

Nishoba, 23 Years Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 15.09.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.1331 of 2017

¶7

Nishoba .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St. George
Chennai – 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Vepery
Chennai – 600 007 .. Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, to calling for the records made in impugned order in BCDFGISSSV No.381 of 2017 dated 24.06.2017 on the file of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery,Chennai – 600 007, the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Vinoth @ Vinoth Kumar, son of Ananda Pandi, aged 27 years before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶9

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records relating to the detention order passed in BCDFGISSSV No.381/2017 dated 24.06.2017 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Vinoth @ Vinoth Kumar, aged 27 years, S/o.Ananda Pandi,

¶10

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

¶11

No.98/15, 2nd Cross Street, F-Block, West Thanikachalam Nagar, Chennai- 600 110 and quash the same.

¶12

It is represented on the side of the respondents that the Detention Order in question has already been revoked, by virtue of G.O.Rt.No.4025 dated 23.08.2017 and a copy of the same is submitted, wherein, it is clearly stated that the Detention Order in question has already been revoked.

¶13

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

¶14

In fine, this petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gpa
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Vepery
Chennai – 600 007
3.The Superintendent of Police
Central Prison
Puzhal, Chennai-66
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
5.The Joint Secretary,
Public (Law & Order),
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
H.C.P.No.1331 of 2017
KJI(CO)
GN(05/10/2017)

¶15

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

Nishoba, 23 Years v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishoba, 23 Years 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh, M/a 23 Years, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Ramesh, Aged 23 Yrs Vs State of Tamilnadu

G.Arumugam, 67 Yrs, Vs the Secretray to Governement

S.Parejan, Vs the State Rep by Its

Dhesamma, Aged 44 Years, Vs the State Rep. by

J.Kengammal, Vs the State of Tamilnadu