Dismissed

R.Sathyavel v. The Principal secretary

Madras HC19 Mar 2019WP/7527/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus directing the Chief of Police to conduct a fair inquiry and initiate departmental action against a subordinate officer due to alleged collusion and harassment. The Bench held the petitioner was a history sheeter and the petition was devoid of merits, dismissing it.

What did the court decide?

No direction to conduct inquiry or initiate departmental action was granted.

R.Sathyavel Vs The Principal secretary — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:19.03.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

W.P.No.7527 of 2019

¶6

R.Sathyavel ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary Department of Home Secretariat St. George, Fort Chennai 2.The Director General of Police Police Head Quarters Kamarajar Salai Mylapore, Chennai 3.The Inspector General of Police North Zone Chennai 4.The Superintendent of Police Vellore Vellore District 5.The Superintendent of Police Thoothukudi Thoothukudi District 6.R.Ravichandran Deputy Superintendent of Police Maniyachi Sub-Division Thoothukudi District ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus, for order or direction in the nature of writ, directing the 2^nd respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 25.08.2018 by conducting enquiry against the 6^th respondent in a fair manner and to initiate department action against the 6^th respondent.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sathish Kumar For Respondents: Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz for R1 to 5 Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of mandamus, for order or direction in the nature of writ, directing the 2^nd respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 25.08.2018 by conducting enquiry against the 6^th respondent in a fair manner and to initiate department action against the 6^th respondent.

¶13

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 6^th respondent who was the then Inspector of Police at K.V.Kuppam Police Station, Vellore District, joined hands with anti social elements involved in the activities against the law. The petitioner preferred several representations to the respondents and other higher authorities, but the respondents did not discharge their duty to dispose of the representation by conducting a fair and unbiased enquiry and initiating appropriate departmental action against the 6^th respondent. The 6^th respondent taking note of the complaint, started to harass the petitioner and his family members with dire consequences using the power of the police. Hence this petition.

¶14

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is the history sheeter. His representation is to take action as against the Deputy Superintendent of Police i.e. the 6^th respondent herein.

¶15

4.Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶16

5.It is seen from the records that the petitioner is the history sheeter. He made several representations to take action against the 6^th respondent herein, who is none other than the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Maniyachi Sub-Division, Thoothukudi District. Hence, this Writ petition cannot be entertained by this Court. This petition is devoid of merits.

¶17

6.Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

kas

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

1.The Principal Secretary Department of Home Secretariat St. George, Fort Chennai 2.The Director General of Police Police Head Quarters Kamarajar Salai Mylapore, Chennai 3.The Inspector General of Police North Zone Chennai 4.The Superintendent of Police Vellore Vellore District 5.The Superintendent of Police Thoothukudi Thoothukudi District 6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. +1cc to Mr.M.Sathish Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No. 25827 W.P.No.7527 of 2019 BR(CO) GN(02/05/2019)

¶23

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

R.Sathyavel v. The Principal secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sathyavel v. The Principal secretary

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

Nirmala Devi Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Chandran Vs the Additional Director General of Police

P.Sathya Priya Vs S.Megala

Helen Shanthini Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Raju Vs Krishna Kumar Iyer

Thiru.B.Saravanan, Aged 54 Yrs Vs State Represented by Its