Dismissed

Pastor G.Gnanaguru, v. The District Collector

Madras HC25 Nov 2016WP/41349/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents to consider a representation filed on 10.10.2016. The Court held police lack statutory duty to consider representations and dismissed the petition. Petitioner to lodge formal complaint for action.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.50/- not allowed. Case closed. No costs awarded.

Pastor G.Gnanaguru, Vs The District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.11.2016 CORAM:

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

W.P No.41349 of 2016

Pastor G. Gnanaguru

.. Petitioner

Vs 1. The District Collector O/o. The District Collector Erode District. 2. The Superintendent of Police O/o. Superintendent of Police Erode District. 3. The Inspector of Police Ammapettai Police Station Ammapettai, Anthiyur Taluk Erode District. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer:- This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.10.2016 and take appropriate action and pass orders.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.A. Swaminathan

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias,

¶10

Addl.Public Prosecutor

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.10.2016.

¶13

It is seen that the petitioner has sent a representation dated 10.10.2016 to the respondents and thereafter has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to consider and pass orders on his representation.

¶14

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

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶16

In the considered opinion of this Court, such an order cannot be passed, as the police do not have any statutory duty to consider representations and pass orders. The police investigation flows from Chapter XII of the Code. As and when, there is aggression from any person, liberty is given to the petitioner to lodge a complaint and on such complaint, action should be taken against the alleged persons.

¶17

Accordingly, this petition is closed. No costs.

¶18

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
avr
To
1. The District Collector
O/o. The District Collector
Erode District.
2. The Superintendent of Police
O/o. Superintendent of Police
Erode District.
3. The Inspector of Police
Ammapettai Police Station
Ammapettai, Anthiyur Taluk
Erode District.
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court,Madras.
+1 cc to Mr.A.Swaminathan Advocate sr 65027

¶19

W.P No.41349 of 2016

¶20

aa23/12/2016

¶21

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

Pastor G.Gnanaguru, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pastor G.Gnanaguru, v. The District Collector

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

Thiru.Gunasekar Naidu, Vs State Rep. by

P.Manoharan Vs Manjuparkavi

Mr.Kanagaraj, Aged 25 Years Vs State Rep. by

M.Karthikeyan, Aged 52 Years, Vs State Rep. by

T.C.Gopalan, Aged 76 Years Vs the Commissioner of Police

Mr.L.Munishwar Ganesan, Vs the State Rep . by Its