BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01/12/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P.(MD)No.10919 of 2008 M.Swaminathan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tallakulam Traffic, Madurai. 3.The Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Wing II, Tallakulam, Sub Division, Madurai District. ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner which was sent by registered post on 07.11.2008. !For Petitioner ... Ms.S.Vijayashanthi ^For Respondents... Mr.D.Sasikumar Government Advocate :ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondent to consider the
representation of the petitioner, which was sent by registered post on
07.11.2008.
2. Heard Ms.S.Vijayashanthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and also
Mr.D.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate who took notice on behalf of the
respondents.
3. The grievance of the petitioner as stood exposited from the affidavit
accompanying the writ petition as well as from the representation made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, is to the effect that the representation
dated 07.11.2008 given by the petitioner to the first and second respondents,
evoked no positive response. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Heard the learned Government Advocate.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the deceased
rider of the motor cycle drove the vehicle carefully and cautiously, having two
pillion riders along the Alagarkoil road; at that time the bus which was parked
negligently on the side of the road acted as an obstacle to the two wheeler and
the accident occurred; however, while the petitioner was in semi conscious stage
in the hospital taking treatment consequent upon the injuries sustained by him
in the said accident, the police filed up the signed blank papers as though the
rider of the two wheeler was at fault; but the true fact was that the petitioner
was cautious in driving it; hence representation dated 10.11.2008 was made to
the first respondent; but it was not considered.
6. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the police
investigated into the matter and found that rider of the two wheeler was in a
drunken mode and that he was having two pillion riders and in such a case, the
accusative finger cannot be raised as against the police.
7. Hence, in this factual matrix, without any manner adjudicating on the
merits of the case, I would like to pass the following direction:
The second respondent viz., the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Tallakulam Traffic, Madurai shall do well to see that he considers the
representation of the petitioner dated 07.11.2008 after giving due opportunity
of being heard to the petitioner untrammeled and uninfluenced by any of the
observations made by this Court within a period of three weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
8.With the above said direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No
costs.
dp/smn
To
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City, Madurai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Tallakulam Traffic, Madurai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Traffic Investigation Wing II,
Tallakulam, Sub Division,
Madurai District.