Dismissed

S.Jothi Loganathan, v. the District Collector

Madras HC15 Dec 2017HCP/2396/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A habeas corpus petition sought the production of an 18-year-old girl removed from an unregistered orphanage by authorities. The Court noted the removal was lawful due to non-compliance with statutory provisions and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Child Welfare Committee to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 11.11.2017 expeditiously.

S.Jothi Loganathan, Vs the District Collector — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.12.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

H.C.P.No.2396 of 2017

¶7

S.Jothi Loganathan ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Kanchipuram
Kanchipuram District.
2. The Chairman
Child Welfare Committee,
Chengalpet,
Kanchipuram District.
3. The Superintendent
Annai Sathya Government Children's Home
Kanchipuram
Kanchipuram District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the
respondents to produce the child Meenakshi Priyadharshini,
C/o.S.Jothi Loganathan aged about 18 years now before this Court
and set her at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ganesh
For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran
Addl. Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.]

¶8

This is a petition, whereby, a direction is sought to secure, one, Ms.Meenakshi Priyadharshini.

¶9

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

¶10

1.1. Even according to the petitioner, Meenakshi Priyadharshini is 18 years of age.

¶11

It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is founder of Siva Sakthi Asrama Trust. The petitioner further avers that in the said home at one given point in time, twenty one (21) girl children and six (6) male children were housed.

¶12

2.1. According to the petitioner, because the home was not registered, the children were removed with the intercession of the District Child Protection Officer, Tanjore on 10.05.2017. This action, apparently, was taken under instructions of the Child Welfare Committee, Tanjore.

¶13

2.2. The petitioner further avers that his home was subsequently granted registration certificate by the Commissionerate of Social defence on 27.06.2017. It is therefore, the case of the petitioner that “most of the children” who were removed from his home have been repatriated. According to the petitioner, Ms.Meenakshi Priyadharshini alone has not been repatriated. The petitioner, inter alia, states that representations, in that behalf, have been made both the District Collector, Kanchipuram and Child Welfare Committee, Tanjore. It is thus, the case of the petitioner that the representations have not been actioned.

¶14

Having regard to the assertions made in the petition, according to us, Ms.Meenakshi Priyadharshini is not in illegal custody. She was removed on account of the petitioner not being in compliance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

¶15

Therefore, this petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 11.11.2017, as expeditiously as possible.

¶16

//True Copy//

¶17

vsm

¶18

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

¶19

To.

¶20

The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.

¶21

The Chairman
Child Welfare Committee,
Chengalpet, Kanchipuram District.
3. The Superintendent,
Annai Sathya Government Children's Home,
Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Madras.
+1cc to Mr.M.Ganesh, Advocate, S.R.No.89500
H.C.P.No.2396 of 2017
CS/09/01/18

¶22

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

S.Jothi Loganathan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Jothi Loganathan, v. the District Collector

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.Dheivasigamani Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Krishnan Vs State Rep. by

Vanitha Sulthana (F-45), Vs the State Represented by

M/S Bgr Energy Systems Ltd. Vs Icici Bank Ltd.

Sarala, 38 Yrs, Vs the Secretary

Shamma, F/a 30 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its