Dismissed

P.Manikandan v. State of Tamilnadu by Its

Madras HC30 Mar 2021WA(MD)/1021/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ appeal as no further order was required since the previous order directed a probe which was completed via a censure imposed on the fifth respondent. Police officials were censured in compliance with the writ appeal order of 2017.

What did the court decide?

No further order required in the appeal as compliance with the previous direction on probe has been reported.

P.Manikandan Vs State of Tamilnadu by Its — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

WA(MD). No.1021 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

¶3

Thursday, the Twenty Ninth day of July Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice B.PUGALENDHI

¶7

WA(MD). No.1021 of 2017

¶8

P.Manikandan ... Appellant/ Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1 State of Tamilnadu by Its

¶11

Home Secretary St.George Fort Chennai.

¶12

2 The Director General of Police Beach Road Chennai.

¶13

3 The Commissioner of Police

¶14

Madurai City.

¶15

4 The Inspector of Police Theppakulam Police Station Madurai City.

¶16

5 Mr.Nagaraj,Inspector of PoliCe, Thirunagar Police Station, Madurai District. (R-5 Impleaded Vide Court order

¶17

Dated 4.8.17 made CMP(MD)7263/17

¶18

... Respondents/Respondents

¶19

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, preferred against the order dated 14.02.2017 in WP(MD).NO.7879 of 2012 on the file of this court.

¶20

Prayer in WP(MD).NO.7879 OF 2012:

¶21

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus direction the Respondents to pay compensation for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Only) to the petitioner and consequently direct the 1st to 3rd respondents to initiate legal actions against the 4th respondent.

¶22

ORDER:- This petition coming on for hearing on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Thiru.MR. T. Arul for Mr. Pon Karthikeyan Advocate for the petitioner and of Thiru.M/S.Mr.K.P. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Narayanakumar special Government Pleader for RR 1 to 4 and Ms. A.S.

¶23

1/3

¶24

WA(MD). No.1021 of 2017

¶25

Rajeswari, Advocate for the 5th Respondent, Government Advocate for the respondent(s),this Court made the following order:

¶26

The matter is taken up for hearing today under the caption 'for reporting compliance'.

¶27

This Court, while allowing the appeal in part, has passed the following order:

¶28

“ 23. In such view of the matter, the third respondent / Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, is directed to probe into the matter and take appropriate action against the erring officials / policemen in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

¶29

It is represented by Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate that in compliance with the directions issued in the writ appeal order, the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, initiated departmental enquiry proceedings and the fifth respondent was imposed with the punishment of Censure, vide order dated 12.07.2021.

¶30

Hence, no further order is required in this writ appeal.

¶31

akv

¶32

Note :

¶33

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.

¶34

¶35

The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶36

St. George Fort, Chennai.

¶37

The Director General of Police Beach Road Chennai.

¶38

The Commissioner of Police

¶39

Madurai City.

¶40

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

¶41

2/3

¶42

WA(MD). No.1021 of 2017

¶43

The Inspector of Police Theppakulam Police Station Madurai City. Copy to:

¶44

The Section Officer, Judicial Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai

¶45

+1 cc to Mr. R. Pon Karthikeyan, advocate(Sr.No.24651)

¶46

ORDER DATED : 29/07/2021 ========================== ORDER ========================== WA(MD). No.1021 of 2017

¶47

Giving direction and etc. as stated within.

¶48

CN(11.08.2021) 3P 7C

¶49

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

¶50

3/3

P.Manikandan v. State of Tamilnadu by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Manikandan v. State of Tamilnadu by Its

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

Vijaya Vs J.Alex

State of Tamilnadu Represented Vs R.Umaselvi

The Branch Manager Vs Kesini

Janab M.a.Uduman Mydeen Vs N.Mohammed Jafarullah

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Vs v.Raja

Sornalakshmi Vs K.G.Sivakumar