Dismissed

V.Mahalingam @ Chittrarasu v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC24 Nov 2020WP(MD)/8648/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to the State to take action against a specific police officer. The court held that the prayer sought in the petition had become infructuous and dismissed it.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous. No costs awarded. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

V.Mahalingam @ Chittrarasu Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.7799 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.11.2020 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.8648 of 2013 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2013

¶5

V.Mahalingam @ Chittrarasu ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The State of Tamilnadu, rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Fort St.George Chennai-9. 2.The Director General of Police, Tamilnadu Police Department, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai.

¶8

3.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.

¶9

4.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai Rural District, Madurai. 5.The Inspector of Police (L&O) V2, Avaniapuram Police Station, Madurai Rural District, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to issue necessary direction to the 4^th respondent to take appropriate action as against the 5^th respondent for having indulged in the activities, which are totally against the constitutional safe guards, based on the petitioner's representation dated 05.04.2013 made to the 1^st respondent.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kannan For Respondents : Mrs.Anandhadevi Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

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

¶13

1/3

¶14

W.P.(MD)No.7799 of 2013

¶15

This petition has been filed for a direction to direct the first respondent to issue necessary direction to the 4^th respondent to take appropriate action as against the 5^th respondent for having indulged in the activities, which are totally against the constitutional safe guards, based on the petitioner's representations dated 05.04.2013 made to the 1^st respondent.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the prayer sought for in this petition has become infructuous.

¶18

Recording the said submission, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶19

Assistant Registrar (CS II)

¶20

// True Copy //

¶21

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶22

dss

¶23

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To

¶24

1.The Principal Secretary, State of Tamilnadu, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

¶25

2.The Director General of Police, Tamilnadu Police Department, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai.

¶26

3.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.

¶27

4.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai Rural District, Madurai.

¶28

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

¶29

2/3

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.7799 of 2013

¶31

5.The Inspector of Police (L&O) V2, Avaniapuram Police Station, Madurai Rural District, Madurai.

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.8648 of 2013 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2013 24.11.2020

¶33

SGS(CO) KK(03.12.2020) 3P 6C

¶34

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

¶35

3/3

V.Mahalingam @ Chittrarasu v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Mahalingam @ Chittrarasu v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

R.Mohanraj Vs The Inspector of Police

V.P.Devanandan Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Baskaran Vs The Inspector of Police

R.Rajapandi Vs The Inspector of Police

Sharpudeen, Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Murugesan, S/O.Arumuga Vs the District Collector