High Court Madras High Court

V.Palus vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 18 December, 2009

Madras High Court
V.Palus vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 18 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATE: 18/12/2009

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

Writ Petition(MD)No.13478 of 2009
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2009

V.Palus						.. Petitioner

Vs

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Home Secretary,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.

2.The Director General of Police,
Beach Road, Chennai - 4.

3.The Superintendent of Police,
Kanyakumari District.

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thukalay,
Kanyakumari District.

5.The Inspector of Police,
Arumanai Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.								

6.Mr.Pathmanapanpillai
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Arumanai Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.

7.Rajaiyan
Head Constable,
Arumanai Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.

8.Mr.Mohankumar						.. Respondents

Prayer

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 4 to 7 not to harass
the petitioner and his family members without any legally sustainable complaint.

!For Petitioner		... 	Mr.S.Rajasekar
^For Respondents
R1 to R5		...  	Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
				Government Advocate
* * * * *

:ORDER

Heard Mr.S.Rajasekar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the
respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Mandamus, to
direct the respondents 4 to 7 not to harass the petitioner and his family
members, without any legally sustainable complaint.

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents
1 to 5 had submitted that the petitioner and his family members are not being
harassed. However, it has been stated that the 5th respondent had to conduct
the investigation, in respect of the complaint lodged by the 8th respondent
against the petitioner. The petitioner had been called for an enquiry two
months back. However, the petitioner has not been called to appear before the
5th respondent, thereafter. If necessary, the petitioner would be requested to
appear before the 5th respondent, as and when further investigation is to be
done.

4. In view of the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate
appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5, since no further orders are
necessary, the writ petition stands closed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is also closed.

cs

To

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Home Secretary,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

2.The Director General of Police,
Beach Road, Chennai – 4.

3.The Superintendent of Police,
Kanyakumari District.

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thukalay,
Kanyakumari District.

5.The Inspector of Police,
Arumanai Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.

6.Mr.Pathmanapanpillai
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Arumanai Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.

7.Rajaiyan
Head Constable,
Arumanai Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.