Disposed

M.a.Mohammed Siddique v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC15 Sept 2017WP/24728/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners sought protection for an upcoming Board Meeting. The Court directed the police respondents to consider the representation on merits without going into the merits of the case, stipulating orders within two days.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the representation dated 04.08.2017 on merits and pass orders within two days.

M.a.Mohammed Siddique Vs The Superintendent of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.09.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

W.P.No.24728 of 2017

¶6

1.M.A.Mohammed Siddique
2.Nisar Ahamed
3.Shaik Alaudeen
4.Abdul Ravoof
5.Haji. Basheer Ahamed .. Petitioners
Versus
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Mayiladuthurai,
Nagapattinam District.
3.Haji D.Mohamed Ishaq ..
Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 04.08.2017 sent by the petitioners for providing adequate security to the Board Meeting to be held on 20.09.2017.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Soundararajan

¶9

This Writ Petition is filed praying for a direction to first and second respondents to consider the petitioners representation dated 04.08.2017 for providing adequate security to the Board Meeting to be held on 20.09.2017.

¶10

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

¶11

respondent herein during the Board Meeting scheduled to be held on 20.09.2017. In this connection, the petitioner has given a representation dated 04.08.2017 to the second respondent seeking for police protection.

¶12

3.In view of the limited prayer sought for in this writ petition and without going into the merits of the case, there shall be a direction to the first and second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.08.2017 on its own merits and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of two days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The first and second respondents while passing orders in the said appeal shall give due opportunity to the third respondent.

¶13

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is
disposed of. No Costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Mayiladuthurai,
Nagapattinam District.

¶14

+1cc to Mr.K.Soundararajan, Advocate sr.67489

¶15

+1cc to Government Pleader sr.67724

¶16

W.P.No.24728 of 2017

¶17

sv(co) ss(18/9/2017)

¶18

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

M.a.Mohammed Siddique v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.a.Mohammed Siddique v. The Superintendent of Police

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

P.J.Prabhakar Israel, Vs the State Rep by Its

S.Arulsamy, (Age 46 Yrs) Vs v.Cheeralan

Yelgris Foods India Vs The District Collector

M/s.Solaimalai Enterprises, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Jessy Gloria, Vs The State Rep. by

M.Mahadevan, Aged 55 Years, Vs the Food Safety Officer