Disposed

Munusamy v. State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Madras HC27 Apr 2021HCP/1934/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Habeas Corpus petition, the petitioner challenged a detention order against his brother under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court recorded that the Government had revoked the detention order and disposed of the petition without further adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The Habeas Corpus Petition stands closed after recording the Government Order revoking the detention.

Munusamy Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 27.04.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice R.PONGIAPPAN

¶5

H.C.P.No.1934 of 2020

¶6

Munusamy ..Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by
The Secretary to Government,
Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai – 7.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison-Puzhal II,
Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
P-3, Vyasarpadi Police Station,
Chennai. ...Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in Memo No.390/BCDFGISSSV/2020 passed by the 2^nd respondent on 26.09.2020 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's son Ajithkumar @ Itta Ajith, son of Munusamy, aged about 24 years, before this Court, who now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal – II, and set him at liberty.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Elumalai For Respondents :^{Mr.R.Prathap Kumar,} Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]

¶13

The petitioner challenges the impugned order of detention in Memo No.390/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 26.09.2020, detaining her brother as "Goonda" under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

¶14

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor reports that the order of detention passed against the detenu has been revoked by the Government by its order in G.O.Rt.No.4986, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XIII) Department, dated 17.11.2020 and he has also produced a copy of the Government Order. Recording the same, this Habeas Corpus Petition stands closed.

¶15

s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
nsd
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai – 7.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison-Puzhal II,
Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
P-3, Vyasarpadi Police Station,
Chennai.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Public, Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶16

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

¶17

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶18

H.C.P.No.1934 of 2020

¶19

RSI(CO) SP(29/06/2021)

¶20

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

Munusamy v. State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munusamy v. State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

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

Shruthi Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Ammu Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Shanthi Vs the Secretary to Government

S.Jaya Vs District Collector and

Uma Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by

Rajeswari Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by