Disposed

Viswakumar v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC29 Aug 2022WP(MD)/16250/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ of Mandamus directing the Superintendents of Police to provide protection for their property in Tamil Nadu. Upon noting the death of the second petitioner during hearing, the Court closed the writ petition allowing legal heirs to restore it if advised.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to legal heirs of the deceased second petitioner to restore the writ petition if advised.

Viswakumar Vs the Superintendent of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.16250 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 29.08.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.16250 of 2013 and

¶7

M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013

1.Viswakumar

2.V.Chandrasekharan

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.

¶13

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

¶14

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kotticode Police Station, Kumarapuram, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

¶15

4.Raju

¶16

5.Santhosh Kumar ... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to provide necessary police protection to the petitioners to enjoy the property of 68 cents in R.Sy.No.317/3 of

¶18

1/4

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD).No.16250 of 2013

¶21

Velimali Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District inter alia by tapping the rubber trees therein.

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.V.M.Balamohan Thambi For R1 to R3 : Mr.N.Muthuvijayan Special Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar For R5 : No appearance

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus,

¶26

seeking necessary protection for enjoyment of a property.

¶27

2.According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, first petitioner is the vendor of the second petitioner. The second respondent has passed away on 24.08.2019.

¶28

3.The learned Counsel for the respondents has produced the death

¶29

certificate of the said second petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that legal heirs of the second petitioner are not responding to prosecute the writ petition.

¶30

4.The said fact is recorded and the writ petition is closed with

¶31

2/4

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD).No.16250 of 2013

¶34

liberty to the legal heirs of the second petitioner to restore the same, if

¶35

they are so adviced. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

¶36

petition is closed.

¶37

29.08.2022

¶38

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Tmg

¶39

¶40

1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.

¶41

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

¶42

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kotticode Police Station, Kumarapuram, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

¶43

3/4

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD).No.16250 of 2013

¶46

R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.

¶47

Tmg

¶48

Order made in W.P.(MD).No.16250 of 2013

¶49

29.08.2022

¶50

4/4

¶51

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

Viswakumar v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viswakumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajantha Barnabas Vs the Ministry of External

G.Palraj, S/O. Ganapathy, Vs the Commissioner

Backiaraj Vs the Additional Superintendent

C.S.I. College of Dental Vs the Principal

K. Lingam, Vs the Home Secretary

S.P.Gurusamy, Vs the Joint Secretary