The Court considered a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking quashing of a detention order and release of the detenu. Upon learning that the Government had revoked the detention order, the Court held the petition infructuous and dismissed it.
None; the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.07.2020
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
H.C.P. No. 35 of 2020
Jothi, Female, aged 38 years,
W/o. Nagaraj,
Door No. 87/145,
Bakthavatchalam Veethi,
Rathinapuri,
Coimbatore District. ...Petitioner/
Mother of the Detenue
Vs
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police/
Detaining Authority
City Police Officer, Huzur Road,
Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore 18. ...Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, relating to the petitioner's son's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 30.12.2019 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Memo C.No.92/G/IS/2019, quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely N. Ranjith, S/o. Nagaraj, aged 21 years before this Court and set the petitioner's son at liberty from detention, now detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr. W. Camyles Gandhi For Respondents : Mr. R. Prathap Kumar (Additional Public Prosecutor)
O R D E R
(Order of the court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN,J.)
The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".
3.It is represented by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents that the Government has revoked the detention order passed by the second respondent against the detenu who is the son of the petitioner.
VG II (CO) KKV/24/09/2020
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a detention order can be maintained when the order has been revoked.
Whether the petition is infructuous due to the revocation of the detention order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jothi, W/o. Nagaraj
Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority
N. Kirubakaran
V. M. Velumani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
