Supriya, v. State Of Tamil Nadu,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 28.06.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH W.P.No.22027 of 2016 Supriya Petitioner Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police Office of the Director General of Police Beach Road, Chennai.
3.The Commissioner of Police Chennai City.
4.The Inspector of Police SRMC Police Station Chennai.
5.The Inspector of Police Thiruverkadu Police Station Chennai.
6.The Inspector of Police Nazarathpet Police Station Chennai.
Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st to 3rd respondents to initiate necessary action against the 4th to 6th respondents by considering the petitioner's representation dated 10.06.2016 in accordance with law.
For petitioner No appearance For Respondents Mr.C.Emalias Addl.Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 1st to 3rd respondents to initiate necessary action against the 4th to 6th respondents by considering the petitioner's representation dated 10.06.2016 in accordance with law.
2. On account of boycott of Courts, there is no representation on the side of the petitioner. However, in Harish Uppal [Ex.Capt.] Vs Union of India reported in [2003] 2 SCC 45, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that boycott of Courts is illegal and therefore, this Court went through the records and passed the following order:
3. It is seen that the petitioner's husband Saravanan is involved in some criminal cases and that the petitioner fears that he will be detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982) and therefore, she has given a representation dated 10.06.2016 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Home Secretary [Prohibition and Excise], Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police and thereafter, has filed this petition for a mandamus as stated above.
4. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a direction cannot be issued to the respondents in anticipation that they are likely to pass a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982. That apart, a Division Bench of this Court in Ingaci v. Commissioner of Devakottai Municipality, Sivaganga Dt. [2010(2) LW 785] has clearly stated that this Court should not mechanically direct the authorities to consider the representations and pass orders. For issuance of a mandamus, there must be a duty cast upon the public authority by a statute to take a certain action and in the absence of it, a mandamus of this nature is not maintainable. Hence, this petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gms
To 1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police Office of the Director General of Police Beach Road, Chennai.
3.The Commissioner of Police Chennai City.
4.The Inspector of Police SRMC Police Station, Chennai.
5.The Inspector of Police Thiruverkadu Police Station Chennai.
6.The Inspector of Police Nazarathpet Police Station Chennai.
+ 1 cc to Mr.S. Mohamed Ansar, Advocate SR. 36043 W.P.No.22027 of 2016 PVS(CO) EU 22.07.16