Disposed

P.Perumal, S/O.Palanichami, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC19 Feb 2021WP(MD)/18542/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing police and finance manager to act for cheating regarding a loan and tractor. Court dismissed petition due to lapse of time, granting liberty to file representation with authorities.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to petitioner to make representation to respondents 1 and 2 for consideration in accordance with law.

P.Perumal, S/O.Palanichami, Vs the Superintendent of… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.18542 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.02.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.18542 of 2017

¶7

P.Perumal ... Petitioner -Vs1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶8

2.The Inspector of Police, Edayakottai Police Station, Edayakottai, Dindigul District.

¶9

3.The Manager, Sri Ram Finance, Oddanchatram, Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the 3^rd respondent for cheating the petitioner and further direct the 3^rd respondent do not harass the petitioner in connection with loan No. OTTAN0303050014 with regard to the Tractor in bearing registration No.TN-48-F-9468.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mrs.G.Gomathi Sankar

¶12

For R1 to R2 : Mr.M.Ganesan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This petition has been filed for seeking a direction to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the 3^rd respondent for cheating the petitioner and further direct the 3^rd respondent do not harass the petitioner in connection with loan No. OTTAN0303050014 with regard to the Tractor in bearing registration No.TN-48-F-9468.

¶15

2.At the time of argument, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that representation was given in the year of 2014. After lapse of six years period, it cannot be considered and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

1/2

¶17

W.P.(MD).No.18542 of 2017

¶18

if the petitioner give any representation, the authorities are ready to consider the same.

¶19

Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Writ Petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to make any representation to the concerned authority as indicated above and the same shall be considered by the respondents 1 and 2 in accordance with law. No costs.

¶20

// True Copy //

¶21

/ /2021

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶23

dss

¶24

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.

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

2.The Inspector of Police, Edayakottai Police Station, Edayakottai, Dindigul District.

¶28

+1 CC to M/s.G.GOMATHI SANKAR, Advocate ( SR-6288[F] dated 19/02/2021 )

¶29

W.P.(MD).No.18542 of 2017 19.02.2021

¶30

ES(CO) KK(09.03.2021) 2P 4C

¶31

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

¶32

2/2

P.Perumal, S/O.Palanichami, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Perumal, S/O.Palanichami, v. the Superintendent 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

Karthick@Karthigai Balan@Sakthivel Karthick Vs The Inspector of Police

The Superintendent of Police Vs R.Arockia Samy

A.Sangaiah, Vs the District Collector

Palani @ Palanikumar Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Mathavan @ Madhavan Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Indumathy Vs The Inspector of Police