Disposed

Tmt.Sathya v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC27 Jul 2021HCP/285/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition challenging a detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the High Court recorded the Government order dated 27.02.2021 which revoked the impugned detention. Consequently, the Court held the petition stands closed and dismissed it without adjudicating the merits of the detention challenge.

What did the court decide?

Petition stands closed due to the revocation of the detention order by the Government.

Tmt.Sathya Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 27.07.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

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

H.C.P.No.285 of 2021

Sathya .. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶9

2.The Commissioner of Police, Detaining Authority, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.

¶10

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore,

¶11

4.The Inspector of Police, Anuparpalayam Police Station, Tiruppur District. .. Respondents

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records relating to the petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 31.12.2020 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Memo C.No.49/G/IS/2020 quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband Balamurali @ Muralipandiyan, aged about 37 years, son of Rasu, who is now confined at the Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Priscilla Pandian

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

The petitioner challenges the impugned order of detention in C.No.49/G/IS/2020 dated 31.12.2020, detaining her husband as "Goonda" under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) reports that the order of detention passed against the detenu has been revoked by the Government by its order in G.O.Rt.No.1004, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XII) Department, dated 27.02.2021 and he has also produced a copy of the Government Order. Recording the same, this Habeas Corpus Petition stands closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

nsd

¶25

¶26

1.The Secretary to Government,

¶27

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶28

Fort St.George,

¶29

Chennai – 600 009.

¶30

2.The Commissioner of Police,

¶31

Detaining Authority,

¶32

Tiruppur City,

¶33

Tiruppur.

¶34

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore,

¶35

4.The Inspector of Police, Anuparpalayam Police Station, Tiruppur District.

¶36

5.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶37

6.The Public Prosecutor,

¶38

High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.285 of 2021

SPD(CO)

CB(18/08/2021)

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

Tmt.Sathya v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tmt.Sathya v. the Secretary to Government

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

Shanthi Vs State Rep by

Aadhimoolam Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government

Chagnaran Vs State Rep by

Manimegalai, Aged 49 Years, Vs Inspector of Police

Sujatha Vs the Commissioner of Police

Rubeka Sathya Kumar Vs the Commissioner of Police