Dismissed

N.Anwar Hussain v. The Commissioner

Madras HC5 May 2023WP/13689/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed for mandatory directives regarding unauthorized demolition. The petitioner had sought action against the third respondent, but the Court held the matter was based on civil allegations closed during enquiry, cu...

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The Public Prosecutor was directed to serve the copy of the closure report to the petitioner within two weeks.

N.Anwar Hussain Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.13689 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.05.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

W.P.No.13689 of 2023

N.Anwar Hussain

... Petitioner

Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Pollachi Municipality, Pollachi. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), State Bank Road, Shanthi Theatre (Opposite), Coimbatore-18. 3.N.Saaliheen ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer:- Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation of petitioner dated 12.01.2022 and consequently direct the respondents to take action against the 3^rd respondent herein for the unauthorised demolition committed by him.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Haja Mahideen Gisthi For Respondent : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R

¶12

This Writ Petition has been filed directing the second respondent to

¶13

consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.01.2022 and

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.13689 of 2023

¶17

consequently direct the respondents to take action against the third respondent herein for the unauthorised demolition committed by him.

¶18

2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that a

¶19

detailed enquiry was conducted in the CSR after issuance of notice to the third respondent herein and closed as the allegations are civil in nature.

¶20

3. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶21

the closure report was not served on the petitioner.

¶22

4. Recording the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. However, the second respondent is directed to serve the copy of the closure report to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

05.05.2023

¶24

Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order

¶25

mpa/rri

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.13689 of 2023

¶29

¶30

1.The Commissioner, Pollachi Municipality, Pollachi.

¶31

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), State Bank Road, Shanthi Theatre (Opposite), Coimbatore-18.

¶32

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.13689 of 2023

¶36

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶37

mpa/rri

¶38

W.P.No. 13689 of 2023

¶39

05.05.2023

¶40

Page 4 of 4

¶41

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

N.Anwar Hussain v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Anwar Hussain v. The Commissioner

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

Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd, Vs the Inspector of Police

Kumar Vs Inspector of Police

Rajkumar Vs the Inispector of Police

K.Raman Vs The Inspector of Police

Suleman Vs State Rep. by

Ravikumar Vs State Rep by