Allowed

S.Murugesan v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC6 Mar 2017WP(MD)/3894/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed seeking police protection for a temple festival. Directed the second respondent to look into the petitioner's untaken representation and dispose of it within two days.

What did the court decide?

This writ petition is allowed in part; the second respondent is directed to look into the representation dated 02.03.2017 and dispose of the same within two days.

S.Murugesan Vs the Superintendent of Police — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.03.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM

¶6

and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN

¶7

W.P(MD)No.3894 of 2017

S.Murugesan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police,

¶12

Madurai District,

¶13

Madurai.

¶14

2.The Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station, Peraiyur,

¶15

Madurai District. .. Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to grant permission and to give sufficient police protection to celebrate the temple festival namely Sree Malaiyamman and Sree Palammal Thirukovil situated at Mathakarai Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District schedule to be held from 10.03.2017 and 11.03.2017 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2017 and pass such further or other orders.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.T.Sasisharan Tamilkani For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J. ]

¶20

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to give police protection on the eve of celebration of Temple festival in the place mentioned in the petition, by way of issuing a writ of mandamus.

¶21

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

¶22

2.Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader, has

¶23

¶24

taken notice for the respondents.

¶25

3.It is seen from the records that on 02.03.2017 a representation has been given, but the same has not been considered. Under the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to pass the following order.

¶26

4.In fine, this writ petition is allowed in part without costs and the second respondent is directed to look into the representation dated 02.03.2017 and dispose of the same within a period of two days.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶29

/True Copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

ps To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶32

2.The Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station, Peraiyur, Madurai District.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.S.T.Sasidharan Tamilkani,Advocate Sr.No. 2503 JAM/07.03.17 /PM-PN/SAR 3/ 2p-4c

¶34

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.3894 of 2017 06.03.2017

¶35

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

S.Murugesan v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Murugesan 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

Anthony Raj Vs the District Collector

N.Raja, S/O.Natarajan Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.Annamalai, S/O. Kayambu, Vs the Superintendent of Police