Disposed

R. Papanasam, S/O.Ramasamy, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC13 Oct 2011WP(MD)/11673/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226, the petitioner sought police protection. The respondent's counsel reported that protection with two constables was already provided based on the petitioner's representation. The petition was closed without costs.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is closed. The petitioner is directed to pay normal charges for police protection.

R. Papanasam, S/O.Ramasamy, Vs the Superintendent of… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.10.2011

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.11673 of 2011

R.Papanasam

... Petitioner

-Vs-

The Superintendent of Police Thirunelveli District

¶11

The District Collector Thirunelveli District

¶12

The Block Development Officer Ambasamuthiram Panchayath Union Thirunelveli District

¶13

The Inspector of Police V.K.Puram Police Station Thirunelveli District ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner forthwith by considering the representation preferred by the petitioner dated 01.10.2011.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani

¶16

For Respondents: Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss Government Advocate O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to provide him police protection.

¶18

Heard Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate took notice for the respondents yesterday and sought time to get instructions. Therefore, the case was posted today.

¶19

Today, it is reported by the learned Government Advocate that on the basis of the representation made by the petitioner, he has already been provided police protection with two Constables being https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ posted for his safety and security.

¶20

¶21

¶22

Therefore, the said submission made by the learned

¶23

Government Advocate is recorded and the Writ Petition is closed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is obliged to pay the normal charges payable in such circumstances. No costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶26

/True Copy/

¶27

	Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.	The Superintendent of Police Thirunelveli District
2.	The District Collector Thirunelveli District
3.	The Block Development Officer Ambasamuthiram Panchayath Union Thirunelveli District
4.	The Inspector of Police V.K.Puram Police Station Thirunelveli District
+1cc +one	to Mr.R.Alagumani, Advocate, Sr.No.35458 cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 35728
vsg SMA/	W.P.(MD).No.11673 of 2011 13.10.2011 31.10.2011/7C/2P

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R. Papanasam, S/O.Ramasamy, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Papanasam, S/O.Ramasamy, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lanco Tanjore Power Vs the District Collector

G.Paramasivam Vs the Commissioner of Police

P. Subramanian Vs the District Collector

Sabruth Begam Vs the Regional Passport

M. Selvarani, Vs the District Collector

S. Sumshu Neesha Begum Vs the Chief Executive