The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention order of her son. The Court dismissed the petition as infructuous after representations confirmed that the Government had revoked the detention order.
Habeas Corpus petition 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 : 22.07.2020
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
H.C.P.No.66 of 2020
Kanmani, F/a. 45 years, W/o. Tamilvanan, No.207, 2nd Street, Ernavoor Gate, Ennore, Chennai – 600 057. .. Petitioner / Mother of Detenue
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, (Home), Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Detaining Authority, Greater Chennai City, Chennai – 600 007. .. Respondents
PRAYER: This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detenue's detention order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Memo No.839/BCDFGISSSV/2019, dated 05.12.2019 and set aside the same and produce the petitioner's son Harivendhan, S/o. Tamilvanan, Male aged about 26 years, now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jagan
For Respondents: Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
1/3
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN,J.)
The matter is heard through video-conferencing.
2.This petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, viz., Harivendhan, S/o. Tamilvanan, aged about 26 years, challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent in proceedings Memo No.839/BCDFGISSSV/2019, dated 05.12.2019.
3.It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of 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.
4.In view of the said representation, this Habeas Corpus
Petition is dismissed as infructuous.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
krk
To
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department, (Home),
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Detaining Authority,
Greater Chennai City,
Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Puzhal.
2/3
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.66 of 2020
pa(co) aa11/09/2020
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the habeas corpus petition is maintainable in light of the revocation of the detention order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kanmani
State of Tamilnadu
Commissioner of Police
N. Kirubakaran
V. M. Velumani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
