Disposed¶33

Sujatha v. The Commissioner of Police

Madras HC26 Mar 2026WP Crl./661/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ petition criminal Article 226 mandamus; Madras High Court 26-03-2026; petitioner Sujatha; BSNL compassionate appointment; death in service Manavalan 12.03.1993; Anbarasan died 30.05.2024; legal heirs Manjula Kuppammal; service records dependent; medical expense reimbursement dispute; police enquiry complaint C.No.9519/COP/Visitors/2025 dated 01.12.2025; Commissioner of Police Vepery; Deputy Commissioner Mylapore; Inspector E1 Mylapore Police Station; enquiry to be completed preferably within two months; dispute predominantly civil in nature; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the third respondent to ensure presence of concerned parties, conduct enquiry and dispose of the petitioner's complaint in accordance with law within a reasonable time, preferably within two months. ¶33

Sujatha Vs The Commissioner of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 and 2 should be directed to complete the enquiry on the petitioner's complaint/representation dated 01.12.2025 bearing C.No.9519/COP/Visitors/2025 within a stipulated time.

¶22

Court's answer

The third respondent (Inspector of Police, E1 Mylapore Police Station) is directed to ensure the presence of the concerned parties, conduct an enquiry and dispose of the petitioner's complaint in accordance with law, within a reasonable time, preferably within two months.

¶31

Key takeaways

The court observed that the underlying dispute between the petitioner and the wife of the deceased employee is predominantly civil in nature, and that the complaint reached the second respondent only because the Commissioner of Police forwarded it on humanitarian consideration.obiter¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Nirmal Kumar, J.), WP Crl. No. 661 of 2026, decided 26-03-2026: Sujatha petitioned under Article 226 for a writ of mandamus compelling the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mylapore to act on her complaint dated 01.12.2025 (C.No.9519/COP/Visitors/2025) concerning disputes following the death of her brother Anbarasan, who had been appointed on compassionate grounds at BSNL after their father Manavalan died in service on 12.03.1993. The brother had listed his wife Manjula (fourth respondent) and mother Kuppammal as legal heirs, but service records showed only the wife as dependent; the parties disputed reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for the petitioner's mother. Noting the dispute is predominantly civil and that the second respondent's notice went unanswered, the court directed the Inspector of Police, E1 Mylapore Police Station (third respondent) to ensure the presence of the concerned parties, conduct an enquiry and dispose of the complaint in accordance with law, preferably within two months; petition disposed of.

¶1

WP Crl. No. 661 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 26-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

WP Crl. No. 661 of 2026

Sujatha

..Petitioner(s)

The Commissioner of Police Vepery, Chennai-600 007.

¶11

The Deputy Commissioner of Police Mylapore, Chennai.

¶12

The Inspector of Police E1, Mylapore Police Station, Mylapore, Chennai.

¶13

4. A. Manjula

¶14

..Respondent(s)

¶15

Writ Petition (Criminal) is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to complete the enquiry on the basis of the petitioners complaint dated 01-12-2025 bearing C.No.9519/COP/Visitors/2025 issued by the 1^st respondent within a stipulated time.

¶16

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Gnanasekar

¶17

For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1 to R3

¶18

Page1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

WP Crl. No. 661 of 2026

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to complete the enquiry on the basis of the petitioner’s representation dated 01.12.2025 bearing C.No.9519/COP/Visitors/2025, within a stipulated time.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 01.12.2025 before the first respondent, which was subsequently forwarded to the second respondent in C.No.9519/COP/Visitors/2025. Despite the same, no action has been taken and hence, the present petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is now ready to appear before the third respondent along with all relevant documents.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶25

Upon a perusal of the complaint, it is seen that the petitioner’s father, Manavalan was employed with BSNL and died on 12.03.1993 during service. Thereafter, the petitioner’s mother also passed away due to cancer. Subsequently, the petitioner’s brother, Anbarasan was appointed on compassionate grounds. The said Anbarasan died on 30.05.2024. The

¶26

Page2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

WP Crl. No. 661 of 2026

¶29

petitioner’s brother had shown his wife, Manjula and his mother, Kuppammal, as legal heirs; however, in the service records, only the wife was shown as a dependent. The petitioner claims to have incurred medical expenses for his

¶30

mother, which are sought to be reimbursed by BSNL and disputes have arisen between the petitioner and the wife of the deceased employee in this regard. Though the dispute appears to be predominantly civil in nature between the parties, the Commissioner of Police, on humanitarian consideration, forwarded the complaint to the second respondent for appropriate action. The second respondent, upon receipt of the same, issued notice to the petitioner, however, the petitioner has not appeared after the notice.

¶31

In view of the above, the third respondent is directed to ensure the presence of concerned parties, conduct enquiry and dispose of the complaint, in accordance with law, within a reasonable time, preferably within two months.

¶32