Dismissed

Manitha Urimaigal v. The Secretary

Madras HC22 Feb 2022WP/13459/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a registered political party against the Home Secretary and Director General of Police for interference in its functioning was dismissed. The Court held the petition unentertainable due to the absence of specific allegations, dates, details of FIRs, or material particulars regarding alleged harassment, resulting in vague and unsupported claims.

What did the court decide?

No costs.

Manitha Urimaigal Vs The Secretary — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.02.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶5

W.P.No.13459 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

Manitha Urimaigal Kalaagam

¶7

represented by its President, Dr.N.Anandhi, Having office at No.502/5, Phantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶8

... Petitioner Vs.

¶9

The Secretary, Home Department, State of Tamil Nadu, St.George Fort, Chennai – 4.

¶10

Director General of Police, State of Tamilnadu, Chennai.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents their men and officials from in any manner interfering with the functioning and administration of the petitioner as a political party in its name “MANITHA URIMAIGAL KALAAGAM”.

¶13

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents: Mr.M.Rajendiran

¶14

Additional Government Pleader

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner claim themselves as a political party registered with the Election Commission of India, seeks an injunction against the respondent not to interfere with the functioning and administration of the petitioner as a political party in the name of Manitha Urimaigal Kalagam (MUK). It is alleged that the office bearers of the petitioner are being harassed and FIR's are filed indiscriminately. But in the entire affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, there is no specific allegation that the respondents have filed the

¶17

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

¶18

particulars of date, details of FIR or other particulars, but has made OMNI Bus and ambiguous allegations. The writ petition, has been filed without specific date and bereft of material particulars. The entire affidavit revolves around unsubstantiated factual details and there is no specific instance of violation of fundamental or statutory rights and thereby, this writ petition is not entertainable.

¶19

2.Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

Dua

¶25

¶26

The Secretary,

¶27

Home Department, State of Tamil Nadu, St.George Fort,Chennai – 4.

¶28

The Director General of Police, State of Tamilnadu, Chennai.

¶29

W.P.No.13459 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶30

NMI[co]

¶31

NSK/02/06/2022

¶32

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

Manitha Urimaigal v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manitha Urimaigal v. The Secretary

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

Deen Dayal Educational and Vs the All India Council for

Mr.S.Venkatesan Vs the Principal Secretary

M/S. Nivas Companu, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Plaza Maintenance and Vs Tamilnadu Generation and

M/S.India Pistons Ltd, Vs the Superintending Engineer

M/S.Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd., Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity