Dismissed

K.Varadha Rajan v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC2 Feb 2017WP/26230/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking forbearance from detaining the petitioner's son under a preventive detention Act and removal of his name from a police history sheet, the Court found the detention prayer infructuous as the son was not detained and the history sheet claim premature as the name was not included. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous regarding detention and premature regarding the history sheet removal.

K.Varadha Rajan Vs the Government of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.02.2017

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P. No. 26230 of 2013

¶6

and M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2013

¶7

K. Varadha Rajan .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Government of Tamilnadu

¶8

rep. By its Secretary Department of Home Fort St. George Chennai.

¶9

The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Metropolitan Police Commissioner Road Egmore, Chennai.

¶10

The Superintendent of Police Thiruvallur Thiruvallur District.

¶11

The District Collector District Collectorate Thiruvallur.

¶12

The Inspector of Police E-5, Redhills Police Station Thiruvallur. .. Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from passing orders against the son of the petitioner namely V. Sathish @ Sathish Kumar, Male, aged 23 years, Jothi Nagar, Paadiya Nallur, Thiruvallur District from detaining him under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982) and further to direct the 5^th respondent remove the name of the petitioner's son V. Sathish @ Sathish Kumar, Male, aged

¶14

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

¶15

23 years, Jothi Nagar, Paadiya Nallur, Thiruvallur District from the history sheet maintained by the 5^th respondent under Police Standing Orders and pass such further orders.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. P.G. Thiyagu

¶17

For Respondents : Mr. S. Diwakar

¶18

Special Government Pleader

¶19

RR1 to 5

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, forbearing the respondents from passing orders against his son, namely V. Sathish @ Sathish Kumar, Male, aged 23 years, Jothi Nagar, Paadiya Nallur, Thiruvallur District from detaining him under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982) and further to direct the 5^th respondent remove the name of his son from the history sheet maintained by the 5^th respondent under Police Standing Orders.

¶22

According to the petitioner, on the basis of foisted cases registered against the petitioner's son in Cr. No.68 of 2013 with Sholavaram Police Station, Thiruvallur District and in Cr. No.182 of 2013, 211 of 2013 and 615 of 2013 pending before the 5^th respondent police, the 5^th respondent intends to sponsor the name of the petitioner's son for detention under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982).

¶23

Today, when the matter was taken up for final hearing, learned counsel for both the parties submitted, as far as the above said criminal cases, the petitioner's son has not been detained and hence the prayer sought for in this writ petition has become infructuous. With regard to the other prayer, to direct the 5^th respondent to remove the name of his son from the history sheet maintained by the 5^th respondent, in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the 5^th respondent, it is stated that the petitioner has approached this Court at a pre-mature stage and so the same cannot be considered. However, as on the date of filing of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner's son V. Sathish @ Sathish Kumar has not been included in the history sheet.

¶24

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

¶25

In view of the said submission of the learned counsel for both the parties, the writ petition is dismissed. If any such order is passed by the respondents, it is always open to the petitioner to agitate before the appropriate forum. Consequently, the connected M.Ps are closed. No order as to costs.

¶26

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS VI )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1. The Secretary
Government of Tamilnadu
Department of Home
Fort St. George
Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai Metropolitan
Police Commissioner Road
Egmore, Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Police
Thiruvallur
Thiruvallur District.
4. The District Collector
District Collectorate
Thiruvallur.
5. The Inspector of Police
E-5, Redhills Police Station
Thiruvallur.
+1 cc to Govt.Pleader,sr.6953.
rr(co)
krd 3/4
W.P. No. 26230 of 2013
and
M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2013

¶27

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

K.Varadha Rajan v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Varadha Rajan v. the Government of Tamilnadu

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

P.K.Uma Maheswari, Vs the Member

Jayalakshmi, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

R.Renugadevi Vs the Secretary to Government

M.Manimaran Vs the Registrar

G.Renganathan, Vs the State of Puducherry

Adhilakshmi, Vs the Tahsildar