K.Karthikeyan v. The Home Secretary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.12.2020 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P.No.17868 of 2020 K.Karthikeyan ... Petitioner -Vs1.The Home Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Salem District.
4.The Inspector of Police, Thaaramangalam Circle, Omalur, Salem District.
5.Mr.Sudhakar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Tholasampatti Police Station, Omalur, Salem District.
6.Mr.Subramaniam, Correspondent, Sivagamiyammal Subramaniam Nursery & Primary School, Tholasampatty P.O., Omalur, Salem District.
... Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3, to take disciplinary action as against the respondents 4 and 5 based on the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2020 and also for an order of compensation directing the respondents 1 to 5 to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) for mental agony and pain suffered by the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Harikrishna for M/s.Lawman Associates For Respondents : Mr.J.Pothiraj, SGP
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3, to take disciplinary action as against the
respondents 4 and 5 based on the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2020 and also for an order of compensation directing the respondents 1 to 5 to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) for mental agony and pain suffered by the petitioner.
2. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the sixth respondent who claims himself as a Correspondent of the School, has used his influence to convert the Service Road meant for public use for his personal use. The petitioner filed a complaint to the fourth and fifth respondents to take action against the sixth respondent as the sixth respondent was causing damage to the Service Road. Since no action was forthcoming, he is before this Court.
3. The averments in its entirety are not at all cohesive as to what is the basis of the complaint of the petitioner. The affidavit appears to be sketchy, bereft of any details and the locus standi of the petitioner was also not explained. The writ petition is apparently in the nature of public interest and how far this petitioner is competent to expose public cause, is another issue.
4. Be that as it may, this Court finds that the writ petition is motivated and the petitioner is ostensibly seeking to achieve a collateral purpose in furtherance of his personal agenda. In that process, he mischievously involving this Court for settlement of personal grudge as against the sixth respondent. The jurisdiction of this Court cannot be misused for promoting the personal agenda of the petitioner and such litigation is always founded on ill will and bad faith.
5. In any case, this Court finds that the affidavit does not contain any cogent averment to make out any legal grievance and therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is liable to be rejected. Hence, the same is dismissed. No Costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gsk To 1.The Home Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Salem District.
4.The Inspector of Police, Thaaramangalam Circle, Omalur, Salem District.
+1cc to Mr.N.Mahendra Babu, Advocate, S.R.No. 39935 W.P.No.17868 of 2020 BS(CO) GN(05/02/2021)