The petitioner sought police protection for himself and school staff. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that a representation challenging the matter was rejected, making the prayer infructuous. The court dismissed the petition on this ground.
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.15320 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.09.2019 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.(MD)No.15320 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD).No.11895 of 2019
R.Sivaraman
: Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District Police, Thanjavur.
2.The Inspector of Police, Thirupananthal Police Station, Thirupananthal,
Thanjavur District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
4.R.Bharanidharan 5.R.Dinakaran : Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and to the students and teachers of the Aided Primary School Mattiyur and to take action against the 4th and 5th respondent based on the petitioner's representation dated 22.06.2019.
For Petitioner : Ms.G.K.Chitra Devi For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.Anandharaj Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to provide police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and to the students and teachers of the Aided Primary School Mattiyur and to take action against the 4th and 5th respondents based on the petitioner's representation dated 22.06.2019.
1/2
W.P.(MD)No.15320 of 2019
2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the representation of the petitioner dated 22.06.2019 was considered and rejected by the order dated 28.08.2019. Therefore, the prayer sought for in the writ petition has become infructuous.
3.In view of the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the rejection order passed by the second respondent. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Writs)
/TRUE COPY/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District Police, Thanjavur. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thirupananthal Police Station, Thirupananthal, Thanjavur District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
+1 CC to M/s.G.K.CHITRA DEVI, Advocate ( SR-87048[F] dated 17/09/2019 )
W.P.(MD)No.15320 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD).No.11895 of 2019 13.09.2019
vsd
JM/03.10.2019/2P/5C
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking police protection becomes infructuous after the petitioner's representation was rejected.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.Sivaraman
Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District Police
Inspector of Police, Thirupananthal Police Station
Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station
R.Bharanidharan
R.Dinakaran
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
