Disposed

Murugan.K v. the City Commissioner of Police

Madras HC2 Jun 2021WP(MD)/8946/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus directing police authorities to consider his representation regarding threats from a relative and provide adequate police protection. The High Court directed the respondents to consider the representation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.03.2021 by following the due process of law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this orde

Murugan.K Vs the City Commissioner of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.8946 of 2021

¶2

K.Murugan

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.06.2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.8946 of 2021

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

¶7

1.The City Commissioner of Police,

¶8

Office of the City Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

¶9

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police (Town),

¶10

Office of the Assistant Commissioner Police (Town), Madurai City, Madurai.

¶11

3.The Inspector of Police, South Gate Police Station,

¶12

Madurai City, Madurai.

¶13

4.V.Jeyalakshmi ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner's life and limb by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 11.03.2021 within a stipulated time.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanan For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner's life and limb, by considering his representation, dated 11.03.2021.

¶18

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the fourth respondent are relatives. Due to the property dispute between themselves, the fourth respondent threatened the petitioner and his family members with dire consequences. Hence, the petitioner made a representation on 11.03.2021 to the respondents 1 to 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far the respondents 1 to 3 did not consider his representation. Hence, the petitioner filed a present petition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/2

¶20

W.P.(MD)No.8946 of 2021

¶21

before this Court seeking police protection.

¶22

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, on instructions, would submit that the representation of the petitioner, dated 11.03.2021 will be considered by the respondents 1 to 3.

¶23

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶24

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.03.2021 by following the due process of law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

6.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶28

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.

¶29

To:-

¶30

1.The City Commissioner of Police, Office of the City Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

¶31

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police (Town), Office of the Assistant Commissioner Police (Town), Madurai City, Madurai.

¶32

3.The Inspector of Police,

¶33

South Gate Police Station,

¶34

Madurai City, Madurai.

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.8946 of 2021 02.06.2021

¶36

AS(11.06.2021)3P 4C

¶37

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

¶38

2/2

Murugan.K v. the City Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan.K v. the City Commissioner 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

A.Sanjeevi Gandhi Vs The Superintendent of Police

Prabu @ Prabakaran Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

G.Manoharan Vs The Superintendent of Police

P.Rajendran Vs R.M.K.R.Durairaj (Died)

Chinnu Vs The Superintendent of Police

S.Pannerselvam Vs The Superintendent of Police