Dismissed

P.Arukkaniammal v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC9 Feb 2024WP/12413/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mandamus to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The petitioner failed to appear on multiple hearing dates despite opportunities; the Madras High Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution, no costs, connected miscellaneous petition closed.

P.Arukkaniammal Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Writ Petition No.12413 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶6

Writ Petition No.12413 of 2017 & WMP.No.13168 of 2017

¶7

P.Arukkaniammal ..Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.State of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009

¶10

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

¶11

3.The Inspector General of Police, West Zone, Race Course Road, Coimbatore -18

¶12

4.The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶13

5.The Inspector of Police, Negaman Police Station, Negaman, Coimbatore District.

¶14

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

¶15

1/4

¶16

Writ Petition No.12413 of 2017

¶17

6.Neelakumar,

¶18

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 to 4 to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the 6 th respondent pursuant to the petitioner's representation dated 17.03.2017.

¶21

For Petitioner : no appearance

¶22

For Respondents : M/s.Akila Rajenderan, GA

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

It is seen from the records that when the matter was taken up for hearing on 12.01.2024, there was no representation for the petitioner and hence, the matter was directed to be listed on 01.02.2024, under the caption ''for dismissal''. On 01.02.2024 also there was no representation for the petitioner. To give one more opportunity to the petitioner, it is posted today. Even today, when the matter is called, there is no representation for the petitioner.

¶25

2.It appears that the petitioner is not evinced any interest to prosecute

¶26

this case. Hence, this Court has no other option except to dismiss the Writ

¶27

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

¶28

2/4

¶29

Writ Petition No.12413 of 2017

¶30

Petition for non-prosecution.

¶31

3.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

09.02.2024

¶33

Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No dn To

¶34

1.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009 2.The Director General of Police, Tamilnadu Police, Chennai. 3.The Inspector General of Police, West Zone, Race Course Road, Coimbatore -18 4.The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶35

BATTU DEVANAND, J

¶36

3/4

¶37

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

¶38

Writ Petition No.12413 of 2017

¶39

¶40

5.The Inspector of Police, Negaman Police Station, Negaman, Coimbatore District.

¶41

6.Neelakumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.

¶42

Writ Petition No.12413 of 2017

¶43

09.02.2024

¶44

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

¶45

4/4

P.Arukkaniammal v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Arukkaniammal v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

K.Jothivel Vs the Managing Director

S.Narayanan Vs the Secretary to Government

P.K.Mohandas Vs Air Head Quarters

J.Deepaklakshmi Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

R.Srinivasan, S/o.Ramasamy Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep by its

S.veeran, Vs The Director General