Allowed

C.Kumarasamy Raja @Kumara Raja v. the Secretary to the

Madras HC2 Aug 2018WP/14834/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus for round-the-clock security. Court held lack of materials prevented immediate grant, directing petitioner to submit a fresh representation enclosing required materials to the fourth respondent.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to approach the fourth respondent with a fresh representation enclosing required materials; authority to consider within four weeks.

C.Kumarasamy Raja @Kumara Raja Vs the Secretary to the — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.08.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P.No.14834 of 2010

¶6

C.Kumarasamy Raja @ Kumara Raja ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai Suburban
St. Thomas Mount,
Chennai – 600 016.
4.The Inspector of Police (L&O)
Sankar Nagar Police Station,
Sankar Nagar,
Chennai -74. ... Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to provide the petitioner C.Kumarasamy Raja @ Kumararaja with a gun man police security round the clock which had been provided to him from 1997 to till the year 2002 so as to protect him in the hand of the religious extremists considering the serious threat to life as his life is endangered at the hands of religious extremists.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Gunaraj For R1 to R4 : Mr.J.Ramesh, AGP

¶10

The limited prayer made in this writ petition is to issue a mandamus directing the respondents to provide the petitioner with a gun man police security round the clock.

¶11

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

¶12

2.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is facing serious threat to his life from various unknown persons. Hence, this writ petition.

¶13

3.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions from one C.Sam Vincent, Inspector of Police, in-charge of Shankar Nagar Police Station/fourth respondent, submitted that even after filing this writ petition, the petitioner was provided with police protection as and when required. He further submitted that there is no material available or produced to show that the petitioner is facing such threat. However, he submitted that if the petitioner approaches the fourth respondent with a fresh representation enclosing all the required materials, the same would be considered.

¶14

4.Recording the submissions so made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the fourth respondent with a fresh representation enclosing all the required materials in support of his claim and on such approach, the fourth respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks. No costs. 5.This writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Sd/Deputy Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Director General of Police, Chennai – 600 004. 3.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Suburban St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016.

¶15

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

¶16

4.The Inspector of Police (L&O) Sankar Nagar Police Station, Sankar Nagar, Chennai -74.

¶17

+1cc to Mr.P.Gunaraj, Advocate sr.no.52672

¶18

W.P.No.14834 of 2010

¶19

nr 16/10/2018

¶20

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

C.Kumarasamy Raja @Kumara Raja v. the Secretary to the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Kumarasamy Raja @Kumara Raja v. the Secretary to the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohamed Imran, Vs the Commissioner

Ambujam Ammal Vs the Executive Officer

Commodore R.S.Vasan in (Retd) Vs the Corporation of Chennai

Seetharamani Vs the Member Secretary

K.Indira, Sri Vishnu Agency, Vs Union of India, Rep. by Its

K.P.Natarajan, Vs the Transport Commissioner