Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A. KANNIYAMMAL versus THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A. Kanniyammal v. The District Magistrate and - H.C.P.No.1500 of 2001 [2002] RD-TN 62 (13 February 2002)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13.2.2002

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.VENKATACHALAMOORTHY AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.GNANAPRAKASAM H.C.P.No.1500 of 2001

A. Kanniyammal ... Petitioner vs.

1. The District Magistrate and District Collector,

Thiruvannamalai District at

Thiruvannamalai.

2. The State of Tamil Nadu,

rep. by the Secretary to Government,

Prohibition and Excise Department,

Fort St. George,

Chennai 600 009.

Prayer: This Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein.

For Petitioner : Mr.P. Mani

For Respondents : Mr. A. Navaneethakrishnan, A.P.P. : O R D E R



(ORDER of the Court was made by A.S.VENKATACHALAMOORTHY, J)

The wife of the detenu is the petitioner, who questions the validity of the order of detention dated 18.08.2001 made in proceedings under D.O.No.45/2001-C2 passed by the first respondent.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detenu was in Sub Jail, Arni, whereas in paragraph 6 of the Grounds of Detention, it is stated that the detenu is confined in Central Prison, Vellore. In fact in the order of detention, a direction has been issued to send the copy to the detenu through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.

3.The detaining authority had no material before him to come to the conclusion that the detenu is confined in Central Jail, Vellore. In similar cases, this Court has held that detaining authority passing such orders has to be set aside on the ground of non-application of mind.

4. In the result, the impugned order of detention dated 18.08.2001 made in Proceedings in D.O.No.45/2001/C2 passed by the first respondent is hereby set aside. This Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty, if he is not required in connection with any other case.

(A.S.V.,J.) (K.G.P.,J.)

13.02.2002

Index: Yes/No

Sd/.Asst. Registrar

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar. To

1. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, at Thiruvannamalai.

2. The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

5. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (L&O), Fort St. George, Madras.9.

Sml.

A.S.VENKATACHALAMOORTHY, J.

AND

K.GNANAPRAKASAM, J.

H.C.P.No.1500 of 2001

13.02.2002




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.