Disposed

B.v.L.Ravi, Age 51 v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Madras HC28 Jun 2017CRL OP/7821/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation seeking police protection for his properties and to pass appropriate orders after providing an opportunity of hearing within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The respondents directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.02.2017 and pass appropriate orders after hearing within four weeks.

B.v.L.Ravi, Age 51 Vs the Deputy Superintendent of — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.06.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.7821 of 2017

¶6

B.V.L.Ravi

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

Vs 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhavani, Erode District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Bhavani Police Station, Bhavani, Erode District. .. Respondents Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the respondents police to give necessary police protection to the petitioner to safeguard the properties comprised in T.S.No.2 measuring to an extent of 6.31 ¾ cents and the building bearing Door Nos.609 to 629 and the Godown bearing Door No.629A situated in Melur Road, Bhavani, Erode District.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.Shangar Murali For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, A.P.P., ORDER

¶10

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner to safeguard the properties comprised in T.S.No.2 measuring to an extent of 6.31 ¾ cents and the building bearing Door Nos.609 to 629 and the Godown bearing Door No.629A situated in Melur Road, Bhavani, Erode District.

¶11

2.However, during the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would suffice, if the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.02.2017 seeking police protection and pass orders, for which, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, has no serious objection.

¶12

3.In view of the submissions so made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court, without going into the merits of the

¶13

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

¶14

claim made by the petitioner herein, directs the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.02.2017 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to all the necessary parties, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶15

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS III )

¶16

/true copy/

¶17

Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Bhavani, Erode District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Bhavani Police Station,
Bhavani, Erode District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras – 104.
+1cc to Mr.K.S.Shangar Murali, Advocate in sr.no.45187
Crl.O.P.No.7821 of 2017
LRS(CO)
NR 27/07/2017

¶18

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

B.v.L.Ravi, Age 51 v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.v.L.Ravi, Age 51 v. the Deputy Superintendent of

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

N.Sathish Vs K.Shanmugam IAS

M/S.South India Road Milk Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M.K.Balasubramaniam Vs Manirathinam

Shri Lalit Kumar Purva, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

C. Muthukumaran, 31 Yrs, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Ms.Logoriya, Vs the State Rep. by