Madras High CourtWP/20405/2024dismissed

Manimaran v. The Chairperson

2024-07-25Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.07.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No.20405 of 2024 Manimaran ....

Petitioner Vs

1. The Chairperson, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, 76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

2. District Environment Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, 9, Fourt Cross Street, Brindavan Road, Fairlance, Salem - 636 016.

3. Inspector of Police, Salem City Police Station, Salem.

4. Inspector of Police, Kitchipalayam Police Station, Salem.

5. Inspector of Police, Shevapettai Police Station, Salem.

....

Respondents

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 to enquire the petitioner's complaint dated 18.05.2024. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sudha Gandhi For R3 to R5 : Mr.Yogesh Kanndasan Special Government Pleader

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction, directing the first respondent to enquire the complaint lodged by the petitioner dated 18.05.2024.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 3 to 5.

3. The petitioner was running a dying unit in the name and style of STMK & Co at Seelanaickenpatty, Salem. While being so, the petitioner lodged a complaint as against the second respondent alleging that the second respondent demanded bribe.

4. A perusal of the records reveals that two FIRs have been registered as against the petitioner in Crime No.182 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 384 & 506(ii) of IPC and Crime No.213 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 341, 384, 511 & 506(ii) of IPC.

5. On perusal of both the FIRs revealed that the petitioner did not permit the officials to inspect his unit and he also threatened them with dire consequences. While being so, the petitioner lodged another complaint to take appropriate action as against the erred officials. When the petitioner is an accused in both the cases, in order to counter the said cases, the petitioner lodged a complaint. Therefore, the direction sought for in this petition cannot be considered. Thus, the writ petition itself is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

25.07.2024 Internet : Yes Speaking/Non-speaking order Lpp

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Lpp To