Disposed

S.Vijayakumar, v. the Home Secretary

Madras HC8 Jul 2015WP(MD)/6885/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandamus for police protection. Accepting the petitioner's submission that the threat no longer exists due to a change of residence, the court closed the petition and granted liberty to approach the court again should a future threat arise.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed with liberty to seek appropriate relief in future event of any threat.

S.Vijayakumar, Vs the Home Secretary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 08.07.2015

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.6885 of 2013

¶7

S.Vijayakumar ... Petitioner vs 1.The Home Secretary, Government of Tamilnaudu, Fort St.George, Chennai. 2.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Beach Road, Chennai. 3.The Inspector General of Police, Office of the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, New Natham Road, Madurai. 4.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District. 5.The Inspector of Police, Kazhugumalai Police Station, Tuticorin District. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to provide police protection to the petitioner and his family members forthwith.

¶8

For Petitioner :Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents :Mr.S.Kumar, AGP

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The prayer in the Writ Petition is a Writ of Mandamus, praying to direct the respondents to provide police protection to the petitioner and his family members forthwith.

¶11

2.The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted that the petitioner, being an Advocate, has changed his residence and therefore, there is no threat as on today.

¶12

¶13

In view of the said submission, this writ petition is closed, giving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief in the event of any threat, in future. No costs.

¶14

SdAssistant Registrar(CO) / True Copy /

¶15

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶16

¶17

1.The Home Secretary, Government of Tamilnaudu, Fort St.George, Chennai. 2.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Beach Road, Chennai. 3.The Inspector General of Police, Office of the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, New Natham Road, Madurai. 4.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District. 5.The Inspector of Police, Kazhugumalai Police Station, Tuticorin District. +1 CC TO MR.ALAGUMANI, ADVOCATE IN SR NO:37422 +1 CC TO SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR NO:37962 mpk JAM: 24.7.15: 2P/8C

¶18

W.P.(MD).No.6885 of 2013 08.07.2015

¶19

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

S.Vijayakumar, v. the Home Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Vijayakumar, v. the Home Secretary

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

Usikattan Vs the Inspector of Police

A. Jain Allaudin Vs the Superintendent of Police

Ramakrishnakumar Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

R.Ramthe Ketharin Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Murugan Vs the Director General of Police

S. Sugumar Vs the Commissionr of Police