Disposed

P.Arivalagan v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC9 Jun 2017WP/9803/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of Mandamus to compel second respondent to order representation on furnishing a History Sheet for removal from Rowdy list. Court directed petitioner to seek the document from the first respondent to facilitate appellate challenge.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to seek History Sheet from first respondent within two weeks; first respondent to furnish copy within two weeks thereof.

P.Arivalagan Vs The Superintendent of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.06.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P.No.9803 of 2017

¶6

P.Arivalagan .. Petitioner

¶7

¶8

1.The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam District.

¶9

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam District.

¶10

3.The Inspector of Police, Velipalayam Police Station, Nagapattinam District. .. Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 31.08.2016 with regard to furnish the order of History Sheet in No.625/2013 dated 27.03.2013 with regard to remove the name of the petitioner from the said Rowdy list within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nandagopal

¶13

For Respondents 1 to 3 : M/s.M.K.Subramanian

¶14

Government Pleader

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Mandamus, directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 31.08.2016 seeking to furnish a copy of the order of History Sheet in No.625/2013 dated 27.03.2013, within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court, so as to enable the petitioner to challenge the same for the purpose of removal of his name from the said Rowdy list.

¶17

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

¶18

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶19

Considering the limited nature of the relief sought for herein, this Court directs the petitioner to approach the first respondent with a copy of the representation dated 31.08.2016 seeking a copy of the order of History Sheet in No.625 of 2013 dated 27.03.2013 as well as a copy of this order, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the first respondent shall furnish an order copy of History sheet to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶20

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed
of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rk
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Velipalayam Police Station,
Nagapattinam District.

¶21

+1cc to Mr.D.Nandagopal, Advocate, S.R.No.41326 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.41247

¶22

W.P.No.9803 of 2017

¶23

VGII(CO) RS(27/06/2017)

¶24

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

P.Arivalagan v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Arivalagan 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

G.Sathya, Aged 34 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police

Immanuel, Aged 42 Years, Vs State Rep. by Its

G.Vijayakumar Vs The Managing Director

Balaji, M/30 Vs the State of Tn Rep by Its

Janarthanam, 67 Years Vs Major J.Victor

A.R.Meenakshi Vs S.Chandra