Dismissed¶22

B.Vellaiyan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC4 Mar 2025WP/18281/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: prawn culture; police protection; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; civil dispute; life and limb; aquaculture ponds; S.Nos.25, 26, 27, 30, 31; Ac.5.51; Puduthurai Village; Sirgazhi Taluk; Mayiladuthurai District; Thiruvenkadu Police Station; Tahsildar Sirgazhi; Madras High Court; G.K. Ilanthiraiyan J.; W.P.No.18281 of 2024; dismissal; approach civil Court for property disputes.

What did the court decide?

The entire dispute between the petitioner and the general public over prawn culture is civil in nature, and the petitioner ought to have approached the civil Court for appropriate relief. ¶20

B.Vellaiyan Vs the Inspector of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.18281 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.03.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.18281 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.20060 of 2024

B.Vellaiyan

... Petitioner

-Vs-

The Inspector of Police, Thiruvenkadu Police Station, Thiruvenkadu, Sirgazhi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Sirgazhi, Sirgazhi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District. ...Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing first respondent to grant protection to the petitioner for doing prawn culture in the ponds located in S.Nos.25, 26, 27, 30 and 31, total Ac.5.51 in Puduthurai Village, Sirgazhi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Baskar For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R2 : Mr.P.Balathandayutham Special Government Pleader

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.18281 of 2024

¶17

O RDER

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed for direction directing the first respondent to grant protection to the petitioner for doing prawn culture in the ponds located in S.Nos.25, 26, 27, 30 and 31, total Ac.5.51 in Puduthurai Village, Sirgazhi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶19

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶20

It is seen that there is a dispute while doing prawn culture between the petitioner and the general public. Therefore, the entire dispute is civil in nature and the petitioner ought to have approached the civil Court for appropriate relief. That apart, the Police Protection can be granted only to the life and limb of a person.

¶21

In view of the above, the direction sought for in this petition cannot be

¶22

considered. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶23

04.03.2025

¶24

Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mn

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.18281 of 2024

¶28

¶29

The Inspector of Police, Thiruvenkadu Police Station, Thiruvenkadu, Sirgazhi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶30

The Tahsildar, Sirgazhi, Sirgazhi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District

¶31

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.18281 of 2024

¶35

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

W.P.No.18281 of 2024

04.03.2025

Page 4 of 4

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

B.Vellaiyan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Vellaiyan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumar (a) Sumanthkumar Vs State Rep by, the Inspector of Police

Ravi Vs State Rep.by, the Inspector of Police

B.Kuppan Vs the Inspector of Police

M.P.Lakshmi, Vs State Rep by

I.Deepak Vs the Inspector of Police

Jayanthi Vs the Commissioner of Police