Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM, JJ.
Daiyana - Petitioner
Versus
State, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department & Ors. - Respondents
H.C.P. No. 1329 of 2024
Decided On : 09-08-2024
HABEAS CORPUS - DETENTION ORDER - The court addressed a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus concerning the detention of Thiru.Karthikeyan. The key legal provision discussed was Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which allows for the issuance of writs. The court found that the detention order had been revoked by the competent authority, leading to the conclusion that no further adjudication was necessary.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the legality of the detention of Thiru.Karthikeyan, who was confined at Central Prison, Salem.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the submission by the Additional Public Prosecutor that the detention order had already been revoked by the competent authority, indicating that the grounds for the petition were no longer valid.
Issues: Whether the court should proceed with the adjudication of the Habeas Corpus petition given that the detention order had been revoked.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that since the detention order was revoked, the basis for the petition was eliminated, and thus, further adjudication was unnecessary.
Result: The Habeas Corpus Petition was closed without further adjudication.
ORDER :
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
[PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in C.M.P.No.48/Goonda/Salem City, the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenue Thiru.Karthikeyan @ Myna Karthi, S/o. Raju, aged about 29 years, now confined at Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty.]
Mr. E. Raj Thilak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents made a submission that the impugned order of detention has already been revoked by the competent Authority and thus no further adjudication needs to be undertaken.
2. In view of the above submission, this Habeas Corpus Petition stands closed.
The revocation of a detention order by competent authority renders a Habeas Corpus petition moot.
A Writ of Habeas Corpus is rendered moot when the detention order being challenged has been revoked by the competent authority.
A Writ of Habeas Corpus is rendered moot when the detention order has been revoked by the competent authority.
A Writ of Habeas Corpus is rendered moot when the detention order being challenged has been revoked by the competent authority.
A Habeas Corpus petition becomes moot when the detention order under challenge is revoked by the competent authority.
The revocation of a detention order by the competent authority negates the need for judicial review of the order.
A Writ of Habeas Corpus is rendered moot when the detention order being challenged has been revoked by the competent authority.
A Writ of Habeas Corpus becomes moot when the detention order has been revoked by the competent authority.
A Habeas Corpus petition becomes moot when the detention order being challenged is revoked by the competent authority.
A Writ of Habeas Corpus is rendered moot when the detention order has been revoked by the competent authority.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
