Mariammal v. State Rep by
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by the sister of a detenue. The court dismissed the detention order solely on the ground of a fatal delay of nearly three months in its passage, without a plausible explanation.
What did the court decide?
The detention order dated 05.07.2018 is set aside and the detenue Rajkumar is set at liberty forthwith.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.03.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
H.C.P.NO.207 of 2019
Mariammal
... Petitioner
-Vs-
State Rep. By
- The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department. Secretariat,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
- The District Collector and District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in S.C.No.41 of 2018 dated 05.07.2018 on the file of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri, the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the detenue Rajkumar S/o. Raman, aged about 24 years now confined at Central Prison, Salem and set him at liberty.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the exposition of delay of nearly three months in passing the detention order warrants interference under Article 226.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Mariammal
- respondent
State Rep. By The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
- respondent
The District Collector and District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court