Disposed

G. Uthirapathi v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC29 Aug 2025WP Crl.(MD)/927/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A brick kiln owner unable to remove bricks due to rival objections sought police protection via writ of mandamus. The police said his complaint was pending as a petition enquiry in CSR.No.357 of 2025. The court directed police to complete enquiry into the complaints within three weeks and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Police directed to conclude enquiry into complaints (CSR.No.357 of 2025) within three weeks; no costs.

G. Uthirapathi Vs The Superintendent of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.927 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.08.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI W.P.Crl.(MD)No.927 of 2025

¶6

G.Uthirapathi ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District.

¶9

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvidaimaruthur District.

¶10

3.The Inspector of Police, Nachiyar Kovil Police Station, Kumbakonam ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to provide Police protection to excavate the bricks from the bricks kiln by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 31.07.2025 and to take action.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Dinesh For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

1/4

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.927 of 2025

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner with a grievance that he is prevented from removing bricks from his bricks kiln has lodged a complaint before the respondent Police and has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondent Police to take action on his complaint.

¶18

2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

¶19

respondents submits that the complaint of the petitioner has been treated as petition enquiry in CSR.No.357 of 2025 and the same is pending and a complaint has also been lodged as against the petitioner.

¶20

3.The petitioner is the owner of the brick kiln and in view of the objection of the rival parties, he is not in a position to remove the bricks. Therefore, the respondent Police is directed to conduct enquiry in the complaints and conclude the same, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

gns 29.08.2025

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.927 of 2025

¶25

¶26

1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District.

¶27

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvidaimaruthur District.

¶28

3.The Inspector of Police, Nachiyar Kovil Police Station, Kumbakonam

¶29

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶30

3/4

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.927 of 2025

¶33

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶34

gns

¶35

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.927 of 2025

¶36

29.08.2025

¶37

4/4

¶38

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

G. Uthirapathi v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Uthirapathi v. The Superintendent of Police

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

Kalaimani Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

S. Vijay Vs The State of Tamilnadu

jayalakshmi Vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By

Stephen Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Saminathan Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep by The Superintendent of Police

Kasimaayan Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep.by