Disposed

M. Gopalakrishnan, v. the Inspector General

Madras HC26 Nov 2020WP(MD)/890/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 filed to direct the Superintendent of Police to consider a representation regarding a boundary dispute. The court directed the second respondent to issue fresh summons and conduct an enquiry within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to issue fresh summons, conduct enquiry on complaint, and pass orders on merits within eight weeks.

M. Gopalakrishnan, Vs the Inspector General — Madras HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.890 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Date : 26.11.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.890 of 2015

¶7

M.Gopalakrishnan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Inspector General of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶10

The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 12.12.2014 and pass such or other suitable order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶12

For Petitioner :Mr.P.Murugesan For Respondents :Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 12.12.2014.

¶15

2.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) filed a counter affidavit of behalf of the second respondent herein stating that on receipt of the complaint from the petitioner, the second respondent issued summons to the petitioner for enquiry. Even after receipt of the same, the petitioner did not appear before the second respondent for enquiry. He further stated that the first respondent has already conducted the enquiry on the complaint received from the petitioner along with counter party and directed the petitioner and counter party to approach concerned competent civil Court to settle the issue in respect of the disputed portion and fix the boundaries of the parties.

¶16

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

¶17

1/2

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.890 of 2015

¶19

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is a specific allegation as against the first respondent in the complaint that the first respondent is supporting the case of the counter party. He further submitted that the petitioner never received any receipt for summons.

¶20

4.Considering the above submission made by either side, the second respondent is directed to issue fresh summon to the petitioner and conduct enquiry on his complaint and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

5.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

vsd

¶27

¶28

The Inspector General of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶29

The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶30

The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.890 of 2015 26.11.2020

¶32

ARK(CO) CS(15.12.2020) 2P 4C

¶33

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

¶34

2/2

M. Gopalakrishnan, v. the Inspector General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Gopalakrishnan, v. the Inspector General

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

S. Mahubi, W/O.Shiek Dawood, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

S.Balaji, Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.Mahalingam @ Chittrarasu Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P.Seeni Naicker, Vs the Supdt. of Police

M.Ananda Raj Vs the Secretary

M.Ameer Sulthan, Vs the District Collector