Allowed

Rathinamani v. the Secretary to the Government

Madras HC27 Jul 2020HCP/96/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a detainee’s wife challenging an order of detention due to violation of procedural requirements regarding the supply of a translated remand extension order to the detenu, leading to the quashing of the order.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 05.11.2019 quashed; detenu directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless presence required for another case.

Rathinamani Vs the Secretary to the Government — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.07.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

¶5

H.C.P.No.96 of 2020

¶6

Rathinamani ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶7

2.District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tiruvannamalai District,
Tiruvannamalai. ...Respondents

¶8

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the Second Respondent dated 05.11.2019 in D.O.No.88/2019-C2 against the petitioner husband Ponraj, male aged 48 years, S/o.Ramasamy, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Karunakaran.

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor. O R D E R (Order of the court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN.J.,)

¶11

The matter was heard through "Video Conferencing".

¶12

2.The Petitioner who is the wife of the detenu has challenged the detention order passed against the detenu in D.O.No.88/2019-C2 dated 05.11.2019 by the Second Respondent.

¶13

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

¶14

3.Heard Mr.N.Karunakaran, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents.

¶15

4.It is seen from the records that remand extension order has not been properly translated and supplied to the detenu in the booklet furnished to him and the same vitiates the detention order and this petition has to be necessarily allowed.

¶16

5.Accordingly, the detention order passed by the Second Respondent in D.O.No.88/2019-C2 dated 05.11.2019 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Ponraj, male aged 48 years, S/o.Ramasamy, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ay
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
The Commissioner office,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Vellore.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 9

¶18

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

¶19

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶20

H.C.P.No.96 of 2020

¶21

MG(CO) KKV/05/08/2020

¶22

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

Rathinamani v. the Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathinamani v. the Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayanan@Orapudi Narayanan Vs State through

Venkatesan@Venkat Vs the Secretary to Government

Reshma Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Sureshkumar @ Suresh Vs State Rep by

Sivanesan Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

B.Deepa Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its