T.Vignesh v. The Chief Secretary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.05.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU T.Vignesh ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Chief Secretary, Secretariate, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St., George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Secretary, Home Prohibition and Excise Dept., Secretariate, Fort St., George, Chennai -9.
3.The Director General of Police, O/o DGP, Dr.Radha Krishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 5.
4.The Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate, Vepery, Chennai - 3.
5.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Page No: 1/10
O/o.Deputy Commissioner of Police, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17.
... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents and in particularly police authorities, 4th & 5th respondents from interfering to run the corporate office of SAVUKKU MEDIA (PVT) LTD., which is situated at Sri Lakshmipathi Complex, 2nd Floor, No.15/2(Old), 7 Raja Badar Street, Pondy Bazar, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17 to telecast and publish the daily public affairs and pass such other further order. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vijendran For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak APP
ORDER
This Writ Petition had been filed seeking to forbear the respondents particularly 4th and 5th respondents from interfering with the affairs of the corporate office of Savukku Media Pvt., Ltd. 2.Heard Mr.P.Vijendran learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Page No: 2/10
appearing for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the creative head of Savukku Media, which is a private limited company and they had been involved in exposing various corruptions in the interest of the public. He would further submit that its CEO Mr.Sankar is a political commentator and make comments based on authenticate information, which had drawn wrath of the ruling party. He would submit that one of the legal correspondent who was also a law student, has been arrested based on a fake FIR and he was released on bail. He would further submit that to crush the activities of its CEO Sankar, he had also been arrested by the Police based on a false FIR. He would submit that after his arrest, the Police authorities have been round the clock targeting the corporate office of Savukku Media and would also rely upon the various footages recorded by the CCTV on 04.05.2024 and 05.05.2024 to contend that the respondents particularly 4th and 5th respondents are trying to Page No: 3/10
interfere with the lawful affairs of the Savukku Media. He would submit that the entire episode of arrest of their CEO and also the interference of the Police authorities had arisen only because of its CEO announcements that he would contest in forthcoming the Egmore Legislative Assembly Constituency election as against the sitting MLA, who is the son of the Chief Minister, In this background, he would submit that the respondent Police is trying to clamb down the activities of Savukku Media, which is contrary to the constitutional mandates and safeguard, provided to the media. Therefore, he would seek this Court to issue mandamus as prayed for.
4. Countering his arguments, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on instructions would submit that the respondents Police had not involved in any of the activities as contended by the petitioner. He would further contend that the Writ Petition had not been filed by the corporate entity, but a person, who claims to be a creative head of the said entity. He had also produced a Page No: 4/10
status filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, wherein it had been specifically averred by the fifth respondent that the office of the corporate entity is located in a busy area in T.Nagar, where there is in generally high volume public and vehicle movement and in order to maintain law and order problem and also to see that no untoward incident happens, there is a regular check by the Police through their patrol vehicle. He would further submit that the apprehension of the petitioner is wholly unfounded.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had also submitted that the respondents namely, the Police authorities are duty bound to take appropriate action if any illegality or unlawful activity, had come to the knowledge even with regard to the petitioner and therefore, he would pray dismissal of the Writ Petition.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials on record. Page No: 5/10
7. It is the claim of the petitioner that pursuant to the arrest of the CEO of the corporate entity, the Police has stepped up a vigil against the office of the corporate entity. He had also vehemently contended that the respondents have locked the premises. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor clearly stated that no such locking had been made by the respondents Police. Further, the fifth respondent herein had filed a status report in which he had stated as follows:-
8. It is submitted that since the office of the Savukku Media is situated at the said office is located at Raja Badar Street, Pondy Bazar, T.Nagar, Chennai, which is a prime location with large number of movement of general public and vehicle, in order to maintain the law and order, the patrol vehicle will be on routine check and the petitioner herein has wrongly presumed that their office is being targeted and wrongfully apprehended that their right to freedom of speech and business has been violated.
Page No: 6/10
8.From a perusal of the above report, it would show that it is a routine check by the respondent Police to maintain law and order problem to avoid any untoward incident. The allegations made by the petitioner in his affidavit are not supported by any material records. Even the photographs produced by him does not drive home his contention that there has been interference in the affairs of the corporate entity. When that being so, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition as prayed for by the petitioner. 9.Further as rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor the petitioner had neither produced any materials to substantiate the status of the corporate entity nor has produced any materials to substantiate that he had been authorised to file a Writ Petition on behalf of the corporate entity, since the petitioner himself has stated that the said corporate entity is a private limited company. However, without going into the locus standi of the petitioner in filing the Writ Petition, taking on record the status report filed by the fifth Page No: 7/10
respondent, the Writ Petition is closed, as there is no lis required to be adjudicated in this Writ Petition.
10.In fine, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is also made clear that this order will not preclude the respondents Police initiating appropriate action against the petitioner as well as the Corporate entity, if any information is received for any activities which is against law. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
09.05.2024 pbn Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No Page No: 8/10
To 1.The Chief Secretary, Secretariate, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St., George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Secretary, Home Prohibition and Excise Dept., Secretariate, Fort St., George, Chennai -9.
3.The Director General of Police, O/o DGP, Dr.Radha Krishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 5.
4.The Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate, Vepery, Chennai - 3.
5.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, O/o.Deputy Commissioner of Police, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17.
Page No: 9/10
K.KUMARESH BABU,J.
pbn 09.05.2024 Page No: 10/10