Disposed

Elephant G.Rajendran v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC1 Mar 2024WP/9162/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought round-the-clock PSO security cover for the petitioner and his family, citing threats arising from his public-interest litigation on temple idol thefts, highway banners, the Nilgiris elephant corridor and resort closures. During pendency, the State posted two police personnel as PSOs and filed a compliance report; recording this, the court closed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Elephant G.Rajendran Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No.9162 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶7

W.P. No.9162 of 2021

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.16619, 22962, 22963 & 22969 of 2021, W.M.P. Nos.10565 of 2022 and 2242 of 2024

¶9

Elephant G. Rajendran

¶10

Petitioner

¶11

¶12

1 The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government Fort St. George

¶13

Chennai 600 009

¶14

2 The Director General of Police Mylapore Chennai 600 004

¶15

3 The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Vepery Chennai 600 007 Respondents

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking

¶17

a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide 24 x 7 PSO security

¶18

cover with guard to the petitioner and his family members.

¶19

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

¶20

1/8

¶21

W.P. No.9162 of 2021

¶22

For petitioner Mr. Elephant Rajendran Party in Person For respondents Mr. R. Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. M. Sylvester John

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(made by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)

¶25

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to

¶26

provide round-the-clock security cover to the petitioner and his family members.

¶27

At the outset, it is necessary to point out the reasons assigned by

¶28

the petitioner for seeking the aforesaid relief. The said reasons could be succinctly culled out from the petitioner's affidavit thus:

¶29

2.1. Filing of Crl.O.P. No.12060 of 2017 by the petitioner bringing to

¶30

light, the theft of idols of deities from temples due to which the H.R. & C.E. Officials and some influential persons are enraged.

¶31

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

¶32

2/8

¶33

W.P. No.9162 of 2021

¶34

2.2. Filing of S.L.P. No.1452 of 2019 by the petitioner aggrieved by defacing the rocks and hills and writing of slogans by political parties in the bridges and central medians in the National Highways and State Highways, in which, the Supreme Court had directed the State Government to remove all banners and also to take action against those who installed the said banners, due to which, several politicians are averse towards him.

¶35

2.3. Filing of W.P. No.10098 of 2000 by the petitioner seeking to restore the Elephant Corridor in the Nilgiris District, which was allowed by this Court and which decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 14.10.2020 in Civil Appeal Nos.3438 and 3439 of 2020, as a result of which, 821 buildings, including 39 resorts were razed to the ground and hence, the affected persons are inimical to the petitioner.

¶36

2.4. Representation dated 23.01.2021 addressed by the petitioner to the District Collector on the burning of an elephant to death by some resort owners in the Nilgiris District, as a fallout of which, 95 illegal resorts and home stay were kept under lock and seal and hence, the affected resort owners wreak vengeance against the petitioner.

¶37

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

¶38

3/8

¶39

W.P. No.9162 of 2021

¶40

Now, coming to the facts of the case, the petitioner initially preferred Crl.M.P. No.12407 of 2017 in Crl.O.P. No.12060 of 2017 seeking police protection, in which, this Court, by order dated 20.10.2017, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim on merits and in accordance with law on or before 02.11.2017.

¶41

Since the aforesaid order did not bear fruition, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6695 of 2018 seeking security cover, wherein, this Court, on 16.08.2018, recording the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the authorities would consider the petitioner's representation qua police protection, closed the said writ petition. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, security cover was provided to the petitioner, which was subsequently withdrawn on 05.11.2020.

¶42

Aggrieved, the petitioner addressed a slew of representations to the respondents seeking police protection, but, in vain and hence, the instant writ petition seeking the relief stated in the opening paragraph.

¶43

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

¶44

4/8

¶45

W.P. No.9162 of 2021

¶46

It is also to be pointed out that during the pendency of this writ

¶47

petition, the petitioner has filed as many as seven miscellaneous petitions, the

¶48

details of which are tabulated hereunder:

¶49

*Case No.*	*Relief*
W.M.P. No.9696 of 2021	Provide 24 x 7 PSO security cover to the petitioner immediately pending disposal of this writ petition
W.M.P. No.16619 of 2021	Compensation of Rs.10 crores to the petitioners' family members, in case, any untoward incident happens to the petitioner before restoration of police protection.
W.M.P. No.22962 of 2021	Submission of copy of enquiry reports of Q- Branch and Intelligence Section.
W.M.P. No.22963 of 2021	Appointment of a retired police officer in the rank of Superintendent of Police or Deputy Inspector General of Police, to enquire the reordered version and to file a report.
W.M.P. No.22969 of 2021	Production of report sent by M/s. Ragu Ramanujam, I.S., Babu, I.S., Soundarajan from SB-CID, Murali, Q-Branch, Ramesh Gandhi from Q-Branch, Senthil from Q- Branch, Pandiselvi from Q-Branch
W.M.P. No.10565 of 2022	Restoration of security that was provided on 04.11.2020
W.M.P. No.2242 of 2024	Restoration of two PSOs

¶50

According to the petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person, in view of the reasons stated in paragraph 2, supra , there is a real threat to his life

¶51

and hence, he deserves round-the-clock security cover.

¶52

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

5/8

W.P. No.9162 of 2021

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

¶57

appearing for the respondents submitted that considering the claim of the petitioner, two police personnel have been posted to the petitioner as PSOs from 17.00 hours on 28.02.2024. He also submitted before this Court a compliance report dated 01.03.2024 in regard thereto.

¶58

In view of the above submission made on the side of the

¶59

respondent authorities, this Court is of the opinion that nothing remains for adjudication in this writ petition.

¶60

Hence, recording the submission made by the learned Additional

¶61

Public Prosecutor, this writ petition stands closed. No costs. Connected W.M.Ps. are closed.

¶62

cad/rk

¶63

[R.M.D, J.] [P.D.A., J.] 01.03.2024

¶64

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

6/8

W.P. No.9162 of 2021

1 The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai 600 009

¶69

2 The Director General of Police Mylapore Chennai 600 004

¶70

3 The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Vepery, Chennai 600 007

¶71

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

¶72

7/8

¶73

W.P. No.9162 of 2021

¶74

R. MAHADEVAN, J. and P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.

cad

W.P. No.9162 of 2021

01.03.2024

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

¶79

8/8

Elephant G.Rajendran v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Elephant G.Rajendran v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Karthikeyan Vs Smt.v.Vidyavathi IAS and 5 others

S.a.Palanisamy, Vs Arulmigu Arthanareeswarar Temple

R.Venkataraman (Pip) Vs S.Sunderrajan

K.Rajasekar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

A.Radhakrishnan Vs the Secretary to the Government

R.Venkataraman Vs The Director