Disposed

M.Boopal Alagan v. the Tashsildar

Madras HC19 Sept 2019WP(MD)/17108/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition filed under Article 226 sought directions for police and administrative protection for the petitioner's family during a temple festival involving rival parties. The court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, issue notices, and pass an order within four weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing to all rivals without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, issue notices to rival parties, and pass an order within four weeks after hearing all parties.

M.Boopal Alagan Vs the Tashsildar — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P (MD).No. 17108 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.09.2019 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶4

W.P (MD).No. 17108 of 2019

¶5

M.Boopal Alagan

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. -

¶8

1.The Tashsildar Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Inspector of Police Panagudi Police Station, Pudukottai District. 3. K. Subbiah 4. P. Krishnamani 5. M. Thiyagarajan 6. M. Kulasekaraperumal 7. P.K. Sundaram 8. N. Muthukalanchiyam 9. N. Janakiraman 10. S. Kanagaraj 11. A. Sowndarajan

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate steps against the respondents 3 to 11 and to give adequate protection to the petitioners family to participate in the temple festival will be held on 02.08.2019 to 10.08.2019.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramu For R1 and R2 : Mr.R.Anandharaj Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

For R3 to 5,7to10 : Mr.V.Sasikumar

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate steps against the respondents 3 to 11 and to give adequate protection to the petitioner's family to participate in the temple festival.

¶15

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

¶16

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

¶17

1/2

¶18

W.P (MD).No. 17108 of 2019

¶19

3.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 01.07.2019 after issuing notice to all the rival parties viz., respondents 3 to 11 and after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties and pass order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

4.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(Crl. Side)

¶23

/TRUE COPY/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

¶27

1.The Tashsildar Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶28

2.The Inspector of Police Panagudi Police Station, Pudukottai District.

¶29

+1. C.C. to M/S.M.RAMU, Advocate SR.No. 87743 +1. C.C. to M/S.V.SASI KUMAR, Advocate SR.No. 88671

¶30

W.P (MD).No.17108 of 2019

¶31

19.09.2019

¶32

JM/14.10.2019/2P/5C

¶33

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

¶34

2/2

M.Boopal Alagan v. the Tashsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Boopal Alagan v. the Tashsildar

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

Pandi Maruthayi Vs Geetharamani

Harshitha, Vs the Inspector of Police

Sivakumar Vs Sudhasini

Sam David Vs The inspector of police

Saravanankumar Vs Jeyaseelan

Thangavel Vs Saravanakumar