Dismissed

K.Perumal v. The District Collector

Madras HC15 Feb 2019WP/10287/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition for police protection and an enquiry regarding specific agricultural land. The court dismissed the petition on the ground that nearly three years had elapsed since the petitioner's application, depriving it of the necessary cause of action.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no costs. Petitioner directed to file a fresh petition on a fresh cause of action if so advised.

K.Perumal Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.02.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

W.P.No.10287 of 2016

¶6

K.Perumal ...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

1.The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur. 2.The Superintendent of Police Thiruvallur District Thiruvallu. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, ponneri, R.D.O Officer Thiruvallur District. 4.The Tahsildar Gummidipoondi Taluk Office Thiruvallur District 5.The Inspector of Police Kavarapettai Police Station, Thiruvallur District. 6.The Village Adminstrative Officer Kettnamallee Village Gummidipoondi Taluk Thiruvallur Taluk.

¶9

7.Dhanalakshmi @ Dhanabaggiam ...Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 5^th respondent to give police protection in respect of Ac.1 in S.No.493/1B and 493/2A. Consequentially direct the 5^th respondent to conduct enquiry based on my representation dated 03.03.2016.

¶11

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

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Guruprasad

¶13

For R1 to R5 : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The writ petition has been filed directing the 5^th respondent to give police protection in respect of Ac.1 in S.No.493/1B and 493/2A and consequently direct the 5^th respondent to conduct enquiry based on my representation dated 03.03.2016.

¶16

It is seen from records that the petitioner has made an application before the 3^rd respondent in the year 2016 and now almost three years have been lapsed, Hence, due to the lapse of period, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted now. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition, on fresh cause of action, if so advised. 3. With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vsn To 1.The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur. 2.The Superintendent of Police Thiruvallur District Thiruvallu. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, ponneri, R.D.O Officer Thiruvallur District.

¶17

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

¶18

4.The Tahsildar Gummidipoondi Taluk Office Thiruvallur District 5.The Inspector of Police Kavarapettai Police Station, Thiruvallur District. 6.The Village Adminstrative Officer Kettnamallee Village Gummidipoondi Taluk Thiruvallur Taluk. 7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.M.Guruprasad, Advocate Sr.14794 W.P.No.10287 of 2016

¶19

vba[co] srg 19/03/2019

¶20

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

K.Perumal v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Perumal v. The District Collector

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

Shanthi Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Manikandan @ C.D.Mani Vs State by

Rafi Ahmed Vs the State through

M.Sudalaimani Vs State by

T.Sivakumar, Vs The Commissioner of Police

Ashok Kumar Vs State rep. by the Inspector