Disposed

N.Madesh v. The Deputy Inspector General

Madras HC10 Jun 2015WP/16111/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging a police transfer. Instead of quashing the order, the court directed the Director General of Police to consider the petitioner's representation for transfer to Salem District on merits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.03.2015 on merits within eight weeks.

N.Madesh Vs The Deputy Inspector General — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.06.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.16111 of 2015 and

¶6

M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

¶7

N.Madesh ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Salem Range, Salem.
2.The Superintendent of Policem,
Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
3.The Director General of Police,
Law and Order, Chennai - 600 004. ... Respondents
(3rd respondent impleaded vide order
dated 10.06.2015 in M.P.No.3 of 2015)

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the order in C.No.A3/614/2015 dated 09.03.2015 to quash the same and issue consequential direction to the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for transfer to Salem District in the light of spouse Transfer policy of Government order No.930, P & AR (Per.M) Department dated 26.07.1977 and other successive Government letters in this regard, and post him to any other police station within Salem District.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan Spl. Government Pleader O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police in Salem District. He was transferred to Krishnagiri District.

¶13

The petitioner has made a representation dated 09.06.2015 to the third respondent to consider his request for transfer to Salem District. The petitioner has stated that his wife is employed in Salem as a Staff Nurse.

¶14

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

¶15

Though the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order of transfer dated 09.03.2015, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the third respondent to dispose of his representation dated 04.03.2015 within a stipulated period.

¶16

In view of the narrow prayer now made, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.03.2015 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
svki
To
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Salem Range, Salem.
2.The Superintendent of Policem,
Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
3.The Director General of Police,
Law and Order, Chennai - 600 004.
+1cc to M/s. M. Ravi, Advocate, S.R.No.28470
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.28228
CA(CO)
EU(16/06/2015)
W.P.No.16111 of 2015

¶18

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

N.Madesh v. The Deputy Inspector General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Madesh v. The Deputy Inspector General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Loganathan Vs The Joint Registrar of

R. Devi Ramamurthy Vs The Director

R.Parthiban Vs The Commissioner of Municipal

M.Govindasamy, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

V.Babu Vs The Secretary to Government

R.Vasantha, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu