Lakshmi v. State Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.03.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA Lakshmi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Government, Namakkal Kavingar Maligai, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Director General of Police, Dr. Radha Krishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Periyanaikanpalayam Sub Division, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

5.The Inspector of Police, 6.Mr.Balamurali Gopi, Inspector of Police, Thudiyalur Police Station, Page No.1 of 6

7.Mr.Senthil Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police, 8.Mr.Damadoran Sub Inspector of Police, 9.Mrs.Bhuvaneswari 10.Mrs.Kumudhini 11.Mr.Sakthi @ Srinivasan ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to take appropriate actions against the respondent Nos.6 to 8 for misusing and dereliction of their official capacity for illegal purpose in respect of complaint dated 10.10.2020 and direct the respondent No.2 to take further action in the complaint dated 07.11.2020. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Mohan For Respondents : Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, GA for R1 to R8 Mr.A.Saravan for R9 to R11

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to take appropriate action Page No.2 of 6

against the respondent Nos.6 to 8 for misusing and dereliction of their official capacity for illegal purpose in respect of complaint dated 10.10.2020 and direct the respondent No.2 to take further action in the complaint dated 07.11.2020.

2. Heard Mr.B.Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 8 and Mr.A.Saravan, learned counsel for the respondents 9 to 11.

3. The petitioner is the tenant of the 9th respondent and there were some dispute between herself and the 9th respondent who is the landlord. In this connection, the petitioner has given a complaint and no action has been taken against the complaint by the respondents 6 to 8 and they acted in a partisan manner.

4. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the complaint of the petitioner dated 10.10.2020 was considered and investigation has been done in accordance with law. Now the petitioner has filed this writ Page No.3 of 6

petition without any locus standi by seeking direction against the second respondent to initiate action against the respondents 6 to 8.

5. At the outset the "employer - employee" relationship is only between the second respondent and the respondents 6 to 8. A third party like the petitioner cannot compel the authorities to initiate any disciplinary action against the employees like the respondents 6 to 8. Further, it is learnt from the submission of the learned Government Advocate that by considering the petitioner's complaint, investigation has been completed.

6. In view of the above stated reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed. No costs.

25.03.2024 Index : Yes /No Internet : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking gsk Page No.4 of 6

To 1.The Secretary to Government, Namakkal Kavingar Maligai, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Director General of Police, Dr. Radha Krishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Periyanaikanpalayam Sub Division, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

5.The Inspector of Police, Page No.5 of 6

R.N.MANJULA , J.

gsk 25.03.2024 Page No.6 of 6