Balasubramanian Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Balasubramanian Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the first to third respondents (police officers, Mayiladuthurai) are bound to furnish to the petitioner a copy of the operation theatre/hospital premises CCTV footages of the fourth respondent hospital dated 28.01.2024 and 29.01.2024, seized by the third respondent. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the requested 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. footage on 29.01.2024 is very much available and shows the operation theatre lying vacant, the directions sought for in the Writ Petition cannot be considered and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

On viewing the entire CCTV footage from 28.01.2024 to 29.01.2024 produced by the third respondent, the Court found that the son of the petitioner had undergone operation in the theatre till 10:30 a.m. on 29.01.2024 and the patient was thereafter taken out, leaving the operation theatre lying vacant during the window sought by the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.) — W.P.No.17576 of 2024, decided 13.03.2025: Petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent and Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai (Respondents 1–3) to furnish him a copy of the operation theatre/hospital premises CCTV footages of Arun Priya Multi Speciality Hospital (Respondent 4) dated 28.01.2024 and 29.01.2024, which had been seized by the police on his representation of 11.06.2024. Though the petitioner had already been provided a pen drive, he insisted on footage for 10:30 a.m.–11:30 a.m. on 29.01.2024. At the Court's direction the third respondent produced the entire hard disc covering 28.01.2024–29.01.2024; viewing it, the Court found the petitioner's son had undergone operation in the theatre till 10:30 a.m. on 29.01.2024 and the patient was then taken out, leaving the theatre lying vacant in the period sought. Concluding the footage sought showed nothing beyond the theatre lying vacant, the Court held the directions prayed for could not be considered and dismissed the writ petition without costs.

W.P.No.17576 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

W.P.No.17576 of 2024

Balasubramanian

... Petitioner

Vs

The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District – 609 001.

The Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District – 609 001.

Arun Priya Multi Speciality Hospital, Rep. by its Director, Nos.3 & 4, Pattamangala Street, Mayiladuthurai, Near Taluk Office, Mayiladuthurai – 609 001. ... Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first to third respondents to furnish the copy of the operation theatre/Hospital premises CCTV footages of the fourth respondent Hospital dated 28.01.2024 and 29.01.2024 which has

Page 1 of 5

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

W.P.No.17576 of 2024

been seized by the third respondent based on the representation given by the petitioner on 11.06.2024 within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.U.Kathiravan

For Respondents : Mr.Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) (for R1 to R3)

Mr.Shivakumar for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates (for R4)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for directing the first to third respondents to furnish the copy of the operation theatre/hospital premises CCTV footages of the fourth respondent hospital, dated 28.01.2024 and 29.01.2024.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

3. Though the petitioner was provided with a pen drive, the petitioner

is not satisfied and he is asking for CCTV footage from 10:30 a.m. to 11:30

Page 2 of 5

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

W.P.No.17576 of 2024

a.m. on 29.01.2024. Therefore, this Court directed the third respondent to produce the hard disc before this Court, and the third respondent produced the entire hard disc consisting of the entire CCTV footage from 28.01.2024 to 29.01.2024. This Court viewed the entire CCTV footage and found that the son of the petitioner had undergone operation in the theatre till 10:30 a.m. on 29.01.2024, and the patient was taken out of the operation theatre. Therefore, the operation theatre was lying vacant.

4. In view of the above, the CCTV footage on 29.01.2024, from 10:30

a.m. to 11:30 a.m., is very much available and the operation theatre is lying vacant. Therefore, the directions sought for in this Writ Petition cannot be considered, and it is liable to be dismissed.

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

13.03.2025

Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order

kv

Page 3 of 5

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

W.P.No.17576 of 2024

To

The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District – 609 001.

The Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District – 609 001.

The Director,

Arun Priya Multi Speciality Hospital, Nos.3 & 4, Pattamangala Street, Mayiladuthurai, Near Taluk Office, Mayiladuthurai – 609 001.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

Page 4 of 5

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

W.P.No.17576 of 2024

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

kv

W.P.No.17576 of 2024

13.03.2025

Page 5 of 5

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