High Court Kerala High Court

Girija Radhakrishnan vs Union Of India on 6 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
Girija Radhakrishnan vs Union Of India on 6 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(Crl.).No. 279 of 2009(S)


1. GIRIJA RADHAKRISHNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL,

3. DIRECTOR GENERAL,

4. COMMANDANT, 124 BATTALION, B.S.F.

5. CHAIRMAN,

6. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ANTONY V. PAUL

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.SANJAY, CGC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI

 Dated :06/08/2009

 O R D E R
                R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
          --------------------------------------------------
                    W.P.(Crl.)No.279 OF 2009
        -----------------------------------------------------
            DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

Basant, J.

The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India complaining that

her husband, a Constable in the BSF, is illegally detained. This

petition filed on 14.7.2009 was admitted on 15.7.2009. Notice

was ordered to the respondent. On behalf of the respondents, a

statement is filed now. The statement makes it very clear that it

is not a case of illegal detention, but the petitioner’s husband has

suffered an order imposing punishment of rigorous imprisonment

for 60 days in the custody of the BSF. Annexure R1(a) order

passed by the Commandant has been produced.

2. It is now evident that the petitioner’s husband is not

in illegal custody and remains in custody in pursuance of an

order passed as revealed from Annexure R1(a). The validity of

that order can of course be challenged before appropriate

authorities in accordance with law. We are not persuaded to

W.P.(C)No.279/09 -2-

agree that the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India deserves be invoked in

favour of the petitioner now.

3. With the above observation – that the rights of the

alleged detenu and the petitioner to challenge Annexure R1(a)

order and the imprisonment referred to therein in accordance

with law shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Writ

Petition, this Writ petition is dismissed.

R.BASANT, JUDGE.

M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.

dsn