Dismissed

D.Thiruttani Kuttu, v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC14 Oct 2022WP/14903/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed the Superintendent of Police to act on representations. The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the petition as infructuous, characterizing the averments as a family dispute and limiting the sought remedy to considering old representations.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs.

D.Thiruttani Kuttu, Vs The Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P. No.14903 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated 14.10.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P. No.14903 of 2015

D.Thiruttani Kutty

. . . Petitioner

1.The Superintendent of Police Sathuvachery Vellore District

¶11

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Ranipet, Vellore District

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police F-3 Sholinghur Police Station Vellore District - 631 102

¶13

4.Smt.P.Usha

¶14

5.S.Nagarajan . . . Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 27.04.2015 and 08.05.2015 and thereby direct the 1st respondent to take suitable action against the respondents 3 to 5.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajesh Kanna No Appearance

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

Page No:1/4

¶19

W.P. No.14903 of 2015

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish, Addl. Govt. Pleader

¶21

for R1 to R3

¶22

No Appearance for R4 & R5

¶23

ORDER

¶24

No representation for the petitioner.

¶25

This writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 27.04.2015 and 08.05.2015 and thereby direct the 1st respondent to take suitable action against the respondents 3 to 5.

¶26

The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, appears to be some family dispute and what was sought to be achieved in the writ petition is to only consider the representation of the year 2015. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, there is no order as to costs.

¶27

14.10.2022

¶28

Index : Yes / No Speaking/non speaking order Asr

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Page No:2/4

¶31

W.P. No.14903 of 2015

¶32

¶33

1.The Superintendent of Police Sathuvachery Vellore District

¶34

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Ranipet, Vellore District

¶35

3.The Inspector of Police F-3 Sholinghur Police Station Vellore District - 631 102

¶36

4.The Government Pleader High Court, Madras

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

Page No:3/4

¶39

W.P. No.14903 of 2015

¶40

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶41

Asr

¶42

W.P. No.14903 of 2015

¶43

14.10.2022

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

Page No:4/4

D.Thiruttani Kuttu, v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Thiruttani Kuttu, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Lizy George Chemmanur Vs Union of India Rep. by Its

Mr.K.Praveenkumar Vs the Director Collector

M/S.P.K.Sudarvel Pandian, Vs the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

P.Pugazhendhi Vs The District Collector

A Bindu Santhosh Vs The District Collector

A.Jayasekar Vs The District Collector