S.Sugantha v. The State Of Tamilnadu,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.02.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.No.7634 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.6862 of 2016 S.Sugantha
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by it Secretary Home Department Fort. St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, St.Thomas Mount District, Alandur, Chennai-600 060.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tambaram, Chennai-600 045.
4.The Inspector of Police, Law and Order Chrompet Police Station, Chrompet, Chennai-44 5.Y.K.Gurunathan 6.Y.K.Sankaran 7.Rama
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent to provide suitable police protection to the petitioner's life in the guise of the decree passed by this Hon'ble Court in S.A.No.7 of 2014 dated 16.012.2015 and confirming the decree in AS.No.69 of 2010 on the file of Sub Court, Tambaram dated 21.08.2013 against the respondents 5 to 7 and against their henchmen and rowdy elements and their people.
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Balasubramanian For respondents : No appearance R1 to R4
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking direction to the 4th respondent to provide suitable police protection to the petitioner's life in the guise of the decree passed by this Hon'ble Court in S.A.No.7 of 2014 dated 16.012.2015 and confirming the decree in AS.No.69 of 2010 on the file of Sub Court, Tambaram dated 21.08.2013 against the respondents 5 to 7 and against their henchmen and rowdy elements and their people.
2. It is seen from records that a decree has been passed in S.A.No.7 of 2014 in favour of the petitioner and the same was confirmed by this Court in A.S.No.69 of 2010. Though the decree was passed in favour of the petitioner, the respondents 5 to 7 were creating disturbance and threatening the petitioner to enjoy her property. However, the petitioner gave a complaint before the respondent police in the year 2016. Now, almost three years have been lapsed and hence, due to the lapse of period, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted now. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition, on fresh cause of action, if so advised.
3. With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vsn To 1.The Secretary Home Departmental Fort. St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, St.Thomas Mount District, Alandu, Chennai-600 060.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tambaram, Chennai-600 045.
4.The Inspector of Police, Law and Order Chrompet Police Station, Chrompet, Chennai-44.
W.No.7634 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.6862 of 2016 CP(CO) rrs 23/03/2019