Disposed

E.Ramasamy v. Secretary to Government

Madras HC11 Apr 2023WP/10158/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought compensation for custodial torture and wrongful confinement. The original petitioner died, and legal heirs were substituted. Relying on an affidavit stating an enquiry was under process but no decision taken on compensation, the Court directed the First Respondent to review materials and decide on merits within twelve weeks before the petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed the First Respondent to consider available materials and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks; subsequently disposed of the writ petition.

E.Ramasamy Vs Secretary to Government — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.10158 of 2004

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.04.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.10158 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.Nos.11830 & 11831 of 2004

¶7

F.Ramasamy (deceased)

¶8

R.Veeralakshmi

¶9

R.Ilaya Bharathi Petitioners

¶10

¶11

State represented by Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Public Department Chennai.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police Trichy.

¶13

The Inspector of Police Valuyampatti Police Station Trichy. .. Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pay to the petitioner compensation of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupeesfour lakhs only) to prosecute on the basis of a fair and impartial investigation by constituting a special investigation team of senior and honest officers and take disciplinary action against the police personnel and others responsible for the wrongful confinement, illegal detention, torture, ill treatment of the petitioner.

¶15

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

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

W.P.No.10158 of 2004

¶18

For Petitioner	:	Mr.R.John Joseph
		for M/s.P.V.S.Giridhar Associates
For Respondents	:	Mr.S.Ravichandran Additional Government Pleader
		for R1 to R3

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to grant

¶21

compensation in respect of the custodial harassment suffered by the original petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition.

¶22

The original petitioner Mr.F.Ramasamy died and the legal heirs are substituted.

¶23

Learned Additional Government Pleader relied on the affidavit filed by the first respondent and made a submission that an enquiry report

¶24

has been submitted and the Government is yet to take a decision. In this regard, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit reads as under:

¶25

“4. It is respectfully submitted that, this case is mainly concerned with the quarrel between the former Village Administrative Officer Thiru A.Ramasamy and Tmt.Backiyam, who encroached the land of Thiru A.Ramasamy and cultivated sugarcane crop and the personal enemity is continuing between

¶26

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

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

W.P.No.10158 of 2004

¶29

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

¶30

the Vaiyampatti police station to give a petition against Tmt.Backiyam, Tmt.Backiyam slapped him, against this Thiru.A.Ramasamy, in turn slapped her. By seeing the action of the former Village Administrative Officer, Thiru A.Ramasamy, the then Inspector of Police has attacked Thiru A.Ramasamy under the impression that he is attacking a woman. When there is a clash between the Inspector and Thiru A.Ramasamy, some Grade-II Police Constables have also tried ti segregate them, since they felt that their higher official (i.e) Inspector of Police is attacked by a petitioner who came to the police to give a petition. The former Village Administrative Officer Thiru A.Ramasamy in his statement has agreed that he attacked the Inspector by using his leg. The Revenue Divisional Officer has categorically stated that it is not true that Thiru A.Ramasamy, former Village Administrative Officer was tied with a chain and beaten up by the police officials.

¶31

5. It is respectfully submitted that the District Collector, Tiruhirappalli District was directed to take steps to enquire the above case by Revenue Divisional Officer under Police Standing Order 151 and he has submitted the enquiry report. The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District also sent a report to the Government. The examination of the enquiry report is under process of the Government and a

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

W.P.No.10158 of 2004

¶34

decision is yet to be taken and it is submitted that the Government have not paid any compensation to the petitioner so far since there is no torture by the police personnel.”

¶35

In view of the affidavit filed, the first respondent is directed to

¶36

consider the materials available on record and accordingly, take a decision and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶38

There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶39

Index : Yes/No 11.04.2023 Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶40

drm

¶41

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

Page 4 of 6

W.P.No.10158 of 2004

To:

The Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Public Department Chennai.

¶46

The Superintendent of Police Trichy.

¶47

The Inspector of Police Valuyampatti Police Station Trichy.

¶48

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

¶49

Page 5 of 6

¶50

W.P.No.10158 of 2004

¶51

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

drm

W.P.No.10158 of 2004

11.04.2023

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

¶56

Page 6 of 6

E.Ramasamy v. Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Ramasamy v. Secretary to Government

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

B.Poornachandar Vs The Government of India

Bannari Amman Sugars Limited Vs the Executive Engineer

Ko.Munetram Vs Chief Election Officer

R.Govindasamy Vs the District Registrar (West)

Agaram Loco Works Slum Clearan Vs Slum Clearance Board, Rep by

Mrs. M.Chandra, Vs The Managing Director-cum-