Disposed

S.Suresh, v. The Commissioner of Police

Madras HC25 Jan 2016WP/1398/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ restraining police interference with his business. Relying on a prior order directing limited police action and legislation, the single judge disposed of the petition at the admission stage, directing the respondents to comply with the extant directions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to comply with the directions of the order in W.P.No.12817 of 2015, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. No costs.

S.Suresh, Vs The Commissioner of Police — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.01.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P.No.1398 of 2016 and WMP.No.1174 of 2016

¶6

S.Suresh .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Commissioner of Police, The Greater Chennai Police, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Chennai. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents or their men, agents from interfering with the peaceful conduct of business in the name of "MOKSHAA" SPA at New No.3, Old No.6, "D" Block, 6th Street, Anna Nagar East, Chennai - 600 102.

¶9

For Petitioner .. Mr.V.Veerapandian
For Respondents .. Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi
Government Advocate
O R D E R

¶10

Heard both sides and the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶11

2.The only grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are interfering with the lawful activities of the petitioner without authority of law. The reliance has been made on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12817 of 2015 in support of the contention made.

¶12

3.In the above said order, the following relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

¶13

“4.Heard the submissions of Mr.K.Dharmaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Digvijaya Pandian, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents.

¶14

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

¶15

5.It is relevant to extract paragraph 67 of the order in Hasti Health and Beauty Private limited case (cited supra), which reads as follows:

¶16

“67.In the light of the above, all the writ petitions are disposed of to the following effect:

¶17

i)The respondents shall not, as a matter of routine and without any basis, conduct any raids and interfere with the business carried on by the petitioners:

¶18

ii)In specific cases where the police have reasonable grounds to believe that an offence punishable under the immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act has been or is being committed, it is open to the police to take action, after scrupulously following all the steps indicated in Section 15 of the said Act. The steps to be followed are narrated by me in paragraph 28 above; and

¶19

iii)Based upon the laws enacted in various states of the United States of America and Singapore, which I have dealt with in paragraphs 39 to 54, the respondents may take appropriate steps for bringing in either a new, 43 legislation or a subordinate legislation in terms of the provisions of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act or the Chennai City Police Act, so that public order, decency and morality, which can form the basis for a regulatory law under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, are taken care of. The Government shall file a report on or before 31.03.2015, before this Court, about the decision taken. No costs. Consequently, all connected pending MPs are closed.”

¶20

6.In the light of the said order, the Writ Petition is disposed of and the respondents are directed to comply with the directions/conditions imposed in paragraph 67 of the said order as extracted above. It is also made clear that the petitioner under the guise of carrying on business activity shall not indulge in any unlawful or illegal activities detrimental to law and order or public order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.”

¶21

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

¶22

4.In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of in the above lines. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

¶23

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (J)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
sgl
To
1.The Commissioner of Police,
The Greater Chennai Police,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station,
Chennai.
1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 4508
1 cc to Mr.V. Veerapandian, Advocate, Sr. 4227
W.P.No.1398 of 2016
SAI (CO)
kk 9/2

¶24

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

S.Suresh, v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Suresh, v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Prema Vs The District Collector

R.Nagaraj, Vs The Tahsildar

Gopal Vs The Chairman

Kongu Nadu Vettuva Gounder Vs The District Collector

Y.Jayasingh Vs Presidency College

V.Palanivelu Vs Joint Sub Inspector