i^-^S^ IC.:-- m 'EHE-'HOX'BEE ;HI©H...@SHS'&;@®faiSWESISSSltESB..^ BII.AggUR W.P. NQ. riM5f9 /2QQ2 B.B. (W.ri.'k £orHabeas Sarpu.s uader Article 22@ eens'tita-ea.eia ©flaai.a).• ^ ,':: ' :. •; . ; ' '.::.,: :;-. .: •: ^ PE'riTIpSER s - t(\^|.iastau 'aiBgta s/b @Ti?i--aaa-Sl.ngh. aged abea-c a.j. ;years--ina^@y,~~;yA) •y-I-llaye ! '^^^" •T^klggQHr-Bdywri^XKia^EyT-atS-frb.' aafegiaol* Throutyh YashwaBt Ttwari ^y^~ . -.s/b;;,Eate^SKri ;:Ctiaadrd,ls|a .:K.rasaa, age<3 atoout 52 yearB,. A<avpealte» 1 • • . •. • •• • ".. • " Member S-fcate Bar GoaB<s:lI sa'ihattisQa.BN S/9 Bloesk S/2, Blat 7;lst'Eto6r, Shra. Bam .Stowers, Byagar Vihar, : BilaspSW G;.G. 4950®!.; ' .-^?-^^ i-'B Sta:'tie @ £!..fi2tha'fetisgaaTh ;' Throagh^ Galleetar, BIiaspur-, e.Q. : ':i . : ; 2. Apgoll®Hespi'tal, •'3'hr®tigb : C.E.O Bi.J.aspu..r-, G.G, . : : • ]: .:•• 3.' Sou.jth Eastern~G®aI(.I>-bd.,i]!!/ ':: Thrgiagli' Senerai, Manager', .jKer&a WSX.S'VSB^'&S3SQMSSa ^S3SS^^^^:_Of:'ISmK. S AS ^M !IK !1 •iim( * M ;,1: w:ws i:li;li:)i iss- HIGH GOURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BHASPUR Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agaihotri & Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, JJ, W.P. No.2470/2002 Petitioner Yashwant Tiwari Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh aad others Appearance: Mr. Aniiyaknat Tiwari, counsel for fhe petitioaer. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate forthe State/respondent No.l. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Pragya Singh, counsel for respondent No.3. ORAL - ORDER (Passed on 15,03.2010) 1. InitiaUy the petition was filed by Dhan Suigh, who was minor, seekiag iiuinediate i^lease froni the iUegal custody of AppoHo Hospital i.e respondent No.2 herein. As flie or^iaal petitioner Dhaa Singh was a minor, fhe present petitioner (Yashwaat Tiwan) was substituted as petitioner. 2. During the course of arguinents, it is brought to fhe notice of this Court that during pendeacy of this petitibn, Dhan Singh has already beeq released aad he does not contmue under detention of any person iacludiag respondent No.2. Thus, fhis writ petition does not survive. \ ;••} lt 2- 3. In fhis petition, leamed counsel for ftie petitioner has sought for certain ofher directions, which appear to be in the nature of public iaterest Utigation. 4. In fhis petition, writ of habeas corpus was sought for, which became itufructuous on release of Dhan. Siagh. The subsequent prayer seekmg a direction to fhe State Goveniment for fraiyag guidelm.es aud holding iaquiry cannot be grauted ia a writ petition filed for writ of habeas corpus. 5. The petition is accordmgly dismissed, as haviag become iufructuous. However, it is open to fhe petitioiier to take appropriate steps, if so advised, ia accordauce wittt law. 6. In View offhe above oider, M(W)P No. 1524/02 aad ofher applications, tf any, staad disposed of. - SdA Sd/- Manindra MohanShrivastava Judge