Disposed

M.Valarmathi F/a 28 Years v. the Secretary to the

Madras HC3 Mar 2017HCP/2711/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, standing guardian of a detained husband, filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 challenging a detention order. Upon the submission that the detention had been revoked by the Government, the High Court closed the petition without addressing the merits of the challenge against the detention order.

What did the court decide?

The petition was closed after the Government revoked the detention order; no further relief granted.

M.Valarmathi F/a 28 Years Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.03.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶5

H.C.P.No.2711 of 2016

¶6

M.Valarmathi .. Petitioner / Wife of the Detenue
Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai- 600 009.
2.District Collertor &
District Magistrate
ThiruvannamalaiDistrict,
Thiruvanamalai. .. Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus, call for the records in connection with the order of Detention passed by the second respondent dated 27.11.2016 in D.O.No.58/2016-C2 against the petitioner husband Vasanth @ Vasantharaj, male aged 33 years S/o.Dhandapani(Late) who is confined at Central Prison Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before the Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.)

¶9

Habeas corpus petition is filed challenging the order of detention passed by the second respondent against the detenue – Vasanth @ Vasantharaj S/o.Dhandapani(Late) in D.O.No.58/2016-C2 dated 27.11.2016.

¶10

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

¶11

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the impugned order of detention has been revoked by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.269, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XI) Department, dated 20.01.2017. Copy of the said Government Order, submitted to this Court, shall form part of the record.

¶12

Recording the above, this habeas corpus petition is closed.

¶13

DM/SKM

¶14

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
/TRUE COPY/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai- 600 009.
2.District Collertor &
District Magistrate
Thiruvannamalai District,
Thiruvanamalai.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Vellore.
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.

¶15

HCP No.2711 of 2016 DM[CO] MK:22/03/2017

¶16

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

M.Valarmathi F/a 28 Years v. the Secretary to the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Valarmathi F/a 28 Years v. the Secretary to the

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

Mrs.Maheswari, Vs the State Rep by Its

Dr.Arun Kumar Pugalenthi Vs Mr.Mithradas

P.R.Venkatraman, M/30 Years Vs the Superintendent of Police

N.S.Sivasukanthi Vs K.Jothi Venkatachalam

The United India Insurance Co. Vs Thiru.Muthaiyan

Sargunapathi, Vs State Rep. by