Disposed

Pugalvanthan.R v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC26 Nov 2021WP(MD)/11371/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to issue a No Objection Certificate for establishing an SPA. The court directed the Commissioner of Police to dispose of the petitioner's representation on merits within four weeks as powers were not delegated to subordinate officers.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Commissioner of Police to dispose of the petitioner's representation on merits within four weeks.

Pugalvanthan.R Vs the Inspector of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

WP(MD)No.11371 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 26.11.2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN WP(MD)No.11371 of 2021 and WMP(MD)No.8901 of 2021

¶4

R.Pugalvanthan ... Petitioner

¶5

vs.

¶6

1.The Inspector of Police, K.Pudhur Police Station, Madurai District.

¶7

2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City.

¶8

(2^nd respondent suo motu impleaded as the second respondent vide Court Order dated 26.11.2021)

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to issue a No Objection Certificate to the petitioner to run a “SPA” ie., “Happiness Welness SPA” at P.No.63, Press Colony, Sambakulam, Mattuthavani Bus Stand Opposite, Madurai by passing orders on the petitioner's representation dated 29.04.2021.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Kasinathadurai For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthilkumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶14

2.The petitioner wants to establish a SPA at the petition mentioned premises. The statutory scheme issued by the Government contemplates obtaining of No Objection Certificate from the Commissioner of Police or any officer nominated by him before approaching the local authority for obtaining license. It appears that as far as the Madurai city is concerned, the Commissioner of Police has not delegated the said power to any officer concerned. The petitioner is directed to send a representation to the second respondent. The second respondent shall dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the date of such receipt.

¶15

1/2

¶16

WP(MD)No.11371 of 2021

¶17

3.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

// True Copy //

¶19

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶20

skm

¶21

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.

¶22

¶23

1.The Inspector of Police, K.Pudhur Police Station, Madurai District.

¶24

2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City.

¶25

+1 CC to M/s.G.KASINATHA DURAI, Advocate ( SR-36322[F] dated 29/11/2021 )

¶26

WP(MD)No.11371 of 2021 and WMP(MD)No.8901 of 2021 26.11.2021

¶27

RK(20/12/2021) 2P 4C

¶28

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

¶29

2/2

Pugalvanthan.R v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pugalvanthan.R v. the Inspector of Police

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

Vengaiya @ Vengaiyan Vs The Inspector of Police

Jawahar Sathyaseelan Vs The Inspector of Police

Chandra Vs the Inspector General of Police

Vijayapandian @ Dinesh Vs The Inspector of Police

Saravanapandi Vs The Inspector of Police

Subramanian.S Vs the State of Tamil Nadu